Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Decommissioning

Nicholas Winterton: What recent acts of decommissioning of illegally held weapons and explosives have taken place in Northern Ireland.

Paul Goggins: Before I answer question 1, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you, and all Members, will want to join me in expressing sadness at the untimely death on Monday of David Ervine, the leader of the Progressive Unionist party. David's story and character were unique and he will be greatly missed by the people and the politicians of Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will attend his funeral on Friday, and I am sure that the whole House will want to send its condolences to his family.
	The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning has reported that it has witnessed full and final decommissioning by the IRA. It is vital that representatives of loyalist paramilitary groups engage with the IICD and make the full transition from conflict to peace.

Nicholas Winterton: Obviously, I join the Minister in the sentiments that he expressed about the death of David Ervine, and I am sure that all Opposition Members would do so.
	Will there be an ongoing assessment process to ensure that Sinn Fein-IRA do not rearm? How can we trust Sinn Fein-IRA when at a recent commemoration ceremony to mark the death of two Sinn Fein-IRA terrorists who had been raiding a police station, a collection of weapons was on display—albeit that Sinn Fein-IRA claimed that the weapons were from an historic collection? Can we trust that they have genuinely decommissioned, or do they yet again have an occasion for deception, which is typical of Sinn Fein-IRA?

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman asks whether there is an ongoing monitoring process, and there is. The IICD continues its work and the Independent Monitoring Commission reports regularly. In successive reports, the IMC has reported that the Provisional IRA no longer possesses either the capacity or the will to wage violent conflict in Northern Ireland. That is an essential step in creating a sustainable long-term peaceful future in Northern Ireland.
	What the hon. Gentleman says would be right if he were to point to dissident republican groups, which still pose a threat to peace in Northern Ireland. One of the strongest reasons why we need to have devolution in Northern Ireland is so that we can get all the political parties and communities in Northern Ireland united against dissident republicans who would undermine the peace process.

Jane Kennedy: May I, from the Labour Benches, add support for the words of my hon. Friend the Minister in memory of David Ervine? When I was security Minister I was privileged to work with David, and I was always struck by the courage that he displayed, very often in facing dangerous challenges from his own side. I am confident that we would not have made the progress that we have made in decommissioning, and in other areas to do with security in Northern Ireland, without the voice of David Ervine having been raised.

Paul Goggins: It is always well to have a previous security Minister watching carefully over my left shoulder on occasions such as this. I join my right hon. Friend in the sentiments that she has expressed. Indeed, it would be a fitting tribute to the memory of David Ervine if loyalist paramilitary groups were to decommission and play their full part in the future of Northern Ireland.

David Simpson: May I, on behalf my party, add to the tributes paid to the late David Ervine? Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife and family at this time.
	Can the Minister confirm that a major security operation was carried out on 11 or 12 December 2006 at the home of a leading Sinn Fein member, Declan Murphy—the brother of Conor Murphy, Sinn Fein Member of this House—in Camlough, Newry, and that important documents relating to security force members and leading politicians were removed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

Paul Goggins: I cannot comment on particular police operations.  [Interruption.] No arrests arose out of those investigations.

William McCrea: Why not?

Paul Goggins: No charges were made. I do not know what the motivation of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) is in raising that matter this morning, but he should be— [Interruption.] What he should be doing —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must be allowed to reply.

Paul Goggins: In my view, what the hon. Member for Upper Bann and his party—and, indeed, all Members— should be doing is uniting in a call for loyalist paramilitary groups to decommission and fully to join the peace process in Northern Ireland, as well as forming part of the united community against dissident republicans, who would still pose a threat to the peace and future prosperity of Northern Ireland.

Laurence Robertson: May I associate myself and the Conservative party with the Minister's remarks on the sad passing away of David Ervine? We agree that it would be a most fitting legacy if the paramilitary groups on the so-called loyalist side were completely disarmed and an end were put to all paramilitary activity. But would it not also be good if there could be an end to all criminality on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland? As a recent report from the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs highlighted, that remains a big problem in the Province, so should not that take place now?

Paul Goggins: I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks about David Ervine—and he is right to raise organised criminal activity, which underpins the remaining paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland and occupies my mind very much. We have the Organised Crime Task Force in Northern Ireland, which is doing a good job of bearing down on the problem. I am sure that the whole House will unite in the quest to ensure that organised criminal activity in Northern Ireland is eradicated.

Agriculture

Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on the prospects for the agriculture sector in Northern Ireland.

David Cairns: The prospects for agriculture in Northern Ireland are positive.

Ann Winterton: The Minister will be as relieved as farmers in Northern Ireland that recent tests on pigs found with foot lesions at an abattoir in Antrim have proved that foot and mouth disease is not present. Will he congratulate the chief veterinary officer on acting efficiently and expeditiously, and will he ensure that he has sufficient staff to monitor live imports properly, in a situation that remains volatile as far as animal health is concerned?

David Cairns: I am happy to join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to Bert Houston and his staff. As soon as he was aware of the possibility of the disease, he brought the matter to my attention. I had a long discussion with him about the steps that we needed to take, and they were taken. That shows that the processes put in place following the unfortunate foot and mouth outbreak a few years ago are now working. I am happy to confirm that no such disease exists in Northern Ireland, and consumers should have absolute confidence in the industry there. I hope that everyone will buy its high-quality produce.

Gordon Banks: One of the changes to the common agricultural policy has been a move away from production subsidies to schemes designed to benefit the environment more. What is the rate of take-up of those schemes? What has been the environmental benefit to Northern Ireland and its farmers?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. The Government have been at the forefront of the campaign for reform of the common agricultural policy, which in its old incarnation was distorting internal markets and wreaking havoc on producers in the third world. We have now broken that link with subsidy production and moved towards the agri-environmental schemes that my hon. Friend mentioned. About 12,000 farmers are participating in those schemes, which help to make up some of the income that they would otherwise have forgone. In addition, the schemes are benefiting the environment of Northern Ireland, and, therefore, all those who enjoy the beautiful Northern Ireland countryside.

William McCrea: The Minister is aware that the Ulster Farmers Union recently published a document, "Five Steps to a Better Future", which the Assembly unanimously adopted in a debate last week. One of the proposals is the removal of red tape. Will the Government actively support that campaign?

David Cairns: I have met the leaders of the Ulster Farmers Union on many occasions to discuss bureaucracy and red tape. Recently, my officials worked with the UFU to reduce to three pages a form which, in its first draft, was 11 pages long, so that was a very productive engagement. My door is open to the UFU and I will certainly listen if it wants to discuss any forms or processes that it believes can be simplified and made clearer.
	I must add that we have to balance that against the fact that we are talking about £300 million of taxpayers' money, and it is right that we have proper accountability for that. It is also right that where some practices are impacting on the environment, we take our responsibilities to the environment and future generations very seriously. We need to balance the need to make processes as simple and clear for farmers as possible with our responsibilities for taxpayers' money and the environment.

Apprenticeships

Claire Curtis-Thomas: What steps he has taken to encourage greater participation in apprenticeships in Northern Ireland.

David Hanson: The Government are committed to increasing the number of apprentices to 10,000 by 2010. A new flexible menu of professional and technical training provision entitled "Training for Success" will be available from September this year. There will be two levels of apprenticeship training to suit different abilities and to meet the requirements of employers and industry.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply—but to complete an apprenticeship a person needs work-based training. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that those who win public sector contracts offer young people the opportunity to complete their apprenticeships?

David Hanson: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. We recently ran a pilot scheme with Victoria Square, a construction company under contract from the Social Development Department, under which we put in place some 11 or 12 apprenticeships as part of the work let by the Department. That is a good model to consider in the future. We are increasing the number of apprenticeships by 4,000 up to 2010, in parallel to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing in Great Britain. The Labour Government, in stark contrast to the Conservative party, are committed to increasing the number of apprenticeships.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Minister will know that if we are to achieve a world-class economy in Northern Ireland, we will need to enhance our skills base and improve the skills of our young people so that we can attract inward investment and help indigenous companies to grow. Will the Minister advise me what part the essential skills platform being developed by the Department in Northern Ireland will play in expanding the number of apprenticeships to 10,000 by 2010?

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that we need to ensure that people in Northern Ireland are skilled for the jobs of the future. We have put in place three levels of apprenticeship. Both apprenticeships for 16 to 24-year-olds are key levels of training, and I hope that the whole House supports the fact that we have also put in place pre-apprenticeship training in schools for 14 to 16-year-olds, so that they can begin to examine the menu of options available to them and enter full apprenticeships after leaving school at 16. Only by ensuring that we have the top level of skills for people in Northern Ireland will we be able to compete with India, China and the rest of the world in due course.

Northern Ireland Executive

Stephen Hammond: What requirement exists for Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive to support the police, the courts and the rule of law.

Peter Hain: All Ministers are required to affirm the pledge of office before taking up office. This includes a commitment to uphold the rule of law, based, as it is, on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability, including support for policing and the courts, as set out in paragraph 6 of the St. Andrews agreement.

Stephen Hammond: I welcome that reply, but what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that any commitment made on the police and upholding the rule of law is permanent, rather than transitory? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that Ministers encourage their supporters to give information to bodies such as the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims' Remains?

Peter Hain: I think that all party leaders, including Sinn Fein's leader, have urged that in respect of the disappeared—to whom I think the hon. Gentleman was referring at the end of his question—information should be brought forward. That is welcome, because those who have lost loved ones are in the worst possible circumstances if they do not know what happened, or where those people's remains might be.
	In respect of the hon. Gentleman's broader question, all people, especially those holding ministerial office, and all major parties elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, need to comply with support for policing, which was why the Sinn Fein Ard Chomhairle—its executive—meeting of 29 December was so important in committing the party to exactly that.

Mark Durkan: Does the Secretary of State agree that none of the uncertainties at the moment on a number of issues—both political and in relation to MI5—should be an excuse for any party to hold back from offering clear and absolute support for the rule of law and those charged with upholding and enforcing it? Will he also address the Government's statement of today indicating that there will be no diminution in police accountability under the new formula agreed between Sinn Fein and the British Government? Will he tell us how there will be no diminution in the accountability of intelligence policing if primacy for intelligence policing goes to MI5, yet if MI5 is not subject to the access or powers that the police ombudsman has at present regarding its information and activities?

Peter Hain: On the first point, yes. Irrespective of anything else, all parties, including Sinn Fein, should sign up to policing and support for the rule of law. I take heart, as does everyone in the House, from the executive decision made by Sinn Fein on 29 December. The executive is meeting again, hopefully with a view to calling an Ard Fheis, which is necessary to complete the process of preparing for the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive, and power sharing in Northern Ireland.
	I agree absolutely about there being no diminution in the accountability of the police service. The existing accountability arrangements will stay regarding the ombudsman and also in every other way, including for intelligence work carried out by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and any necessary liaison that PSNI officers have with MI5. There will of course be no diminution in that accountability. The five principles that the chief constable has put forward are embedded in the Prime Minister's written ministerial statement of today.
	Finally, on the other point, I can tell the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is currently engaged in a discussion with the security service about how she can have access to sensitive information. She certainly has such access in certain circumstances, and I believe that she will have more access in the future.

Lady Hermon: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm that the triple lock will remain securely in place when there is devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland? The triple lock means that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister must agree to that devolution, and that there must be cross-community support in the Assembly and an order in this House. Will he confirm that that devolution will not be imposed in Northern Ireland without cross-community support?

Peter Hain: Of course, and I said as much to an Assembly sub-committee yesterday. I want the appointment of a justice Minister and a deputy justice Minister to be achieved by a cross-community vote in the Assembly, with the so-called triple lock, to which the hon. Lady referred, in place. The Act passed by Parliament last year made no attempt to change that, but we need to get on with the process. All the Unionist parties, including hers, and all the other parties support the principle of devolving policing and justice. The Government are committed to that, and if there is delivery on policing, we want to meet the St. Andrews time frame of May 2008 for that devolution.

Patrick Cormack: The House will be grateful for what the Secretary of State has just said, but will he give us another unequivocal assurance—that those who accept ministerial office in any Northern Ireland power-sharing Executive will have placed on them the same requirements and obligations as are placed on those who serve in the devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales?

Peter Hain: I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point, but in some respects the obligations in Northern Ireland are greater. The ministerial pledge of office, as amended in the Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, which this House passed last November, makes it clear that Ministers must support the police, the rule of law and the courts. The Ard Chomhairle motion passed by the Sinn Fein executive on 29 December specifically authorised its members to take the ministerial pledge of office, and that is encouraging for the future.

Nigel Dodds: Does the Secretary of State accept that words alone are not enough when it comes to policing and support for the courts and the rule of law? Sinn Fein's support for the police, the courts and the rule of law must be tested against its actions over a credible period. In the past, we have learned to our cost that Sinn Fein's words are meaningless when it comes to translating them into action. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that people in Northern Ireland believe that Sinn Fein should sign up for policing and the rule of law without conditions or concessions? That means that the May 2008 date for the devolution of policing and justice cannot apply, as there can be no commitment to any date when we do not know whether Sinn Fein will deliver.

Peter Hain: I of course agree that Sinn Fein should sign up to policing and the rule of law, and to the justice system in every other respect. I also agree that there has to be sustainable delivery. There is no question about that, but the May 2008 timetable agreed in the Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) Act is a Government objective, to which all parties should work. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the date set out in that Act, which was passed by Parliament, is very clear. On March 26, there will either be the restoration of devolution or there will be dissolution. That date cannot be moved. We are proceeding towards devolution and I think that we can achieve it, but there will be dissolution if we do not.

David Lidington: May I ask the Secretary of State to be a bit more specific and state the criteria that he and the Government will use to judge whether Sinn Fein's hoped-for support for policing is delivered in actions as well as in words? Such actions are needed to make the devolution of policing and criminal justice possible.

Peter Hain: We will want Sinn Fein representatives to display full co-operation with policing in every respect, and I know that the hon. Gentleman wants the same thing. For example, that will mean that they will report any crime carried out in their communities, and that they will assist the police in every respect. We also expect them to join the Policing Board for Northern Ireland and the district policing partnerships. As I said earlier, the executive motion passed by Sinn Fein on 29 December commits that organisation's representatives to all those things, and it is therefore important that we get on with the process.

David Lidington: Does the Secretary of State envisage that the Independent Monitoring Commission, or some other body apart from the Government, will play a role in monitoring Sinn Fein's performance at living up to its words in practice, so that Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have some objective evidence and assessment available to them, as well as the views of Ministers, to guide their opinion on whether delivery has been achieved?

Peter Hain: An IMC report is due at the end of the month, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and there will be continual IMC reports over the coming months and years in order to ensure full compliance with what is needed. May I also say to the hon. Gentleman that what is at stake is an historic prize, of devolution and support for the rule of law and policing? We have never been in this position before, where all parties want power sharing and all parties are ready to stand up and support policing and the rule of law. Let us grab that prize and go for it, because the clock is ticking and we need to achieve by 26 March—with full restoration and delivery on policing in place.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Bain Review

Eddie McGrady: If he will make a statement on the outcome of the strategic review of education led by Professor Sir George Bain.

Maria Eagle: We welcome the landmark report published last month by Professor Sir George Bain, which recommended improving the quality of education in Northern Ireland through better use of resources, better planning of schools and improved sharing and collaboration. It is a blueprint for excellence in all our schools and will enable all Northern Ireland children to get full value from the efficient use of the massive 60 per cent. real-terms increase in resources committed to education by the Government at a time of falling rolls.

Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for her reply. Will she briefly explain the relationship between the Bain review and the policy documents issued by the Department with specific reference to the planning of new schools and the rationalisation of schools? Paragraph 9.3 of Bain states that any planning of new schools must reflect the make-up of society in Northern Ireland, but that does not appear in the Government document for consultation. It further states that each sector must be supported in its plans, but only one sector seems to be relevant—the Department, which will dictate exactly what happens. Will the Minister please rationalise that?

Maria Eagle: One of the main recommendations of the Bain review—one that will enable us to achieve maximum efficiency in the spending of increased resources—is the concept of area-based planning. It will no longer be sensible or possible for individual sectors to plan only within their sectors, which would be a recipe for pouring our extra resourcing down the drain. It will be important for all sectors to involve themselves, in conjunction with the Department, in planning for schools, and to spend increased resources on an area and geographical basis, not just within sectors.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister accept that, in the light of the findings of the Bain review, there is absolutely no justification— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard.

Sammy Wilson: There is absolutely no justification for continuing with the unfair and wasteful policy introduced by Martin McGuinness, which requires the Education Department to fund integrated and Irish-medium schools with an intake as low as 12 pupils—at a time when there is massive overcapacity and the Minister is closing down schools with far higher intakes in the maintained and controlled sector. That is unfair, divisive and wasteful, so will the Minister end that policy?

Maria Eagle: I certainly do not agree that integrated or Irish-medium schools are divisive, as they are meeting a need that parents in Northern Ireland want to see met. That is legitimate. However, I accept that we will not get full value from the extra resources going in if we keep supporting extremely small schools, as we have in the past. Bain set out some minima below which it will be important to review the continued educational sustainability of schools, and it is important to take those recommendations forward speedily and in all seriousness. I hope that all education stakeholders in Northern Ireland will join me, and the Department, in taking them forward in a positive and constructive manner.

Lembit �pik: Regarding the [ Interruption. ] I think that hon. Members should leave any cheeky business to me.
	Regarding the death of David Ervine, I knew him for more than a decade, and in my book he was a true statesman of Northern Ireland politics. He was also a friend. I shall miss him, and I am sure that everyone who worked with him feels the same way about his passing.
	In his report, Sir George Bain underlines the need for more religious mixing in schools, so how can the Minister refuse new integrated schools in Antrim, Ballymoney and Strabane, and deny existing schools in Armagh and Belfast integrated status, especially as that would have no impact on existing schools? Will she reconsider that that is a bad decision?

Maria Eagle: Under the present Government, we have seen the biggest push ever towards increasing integrated education. As I have already said, the integrated sector is a vital part of creating the shared future that is crucial to peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Whenever I consider proposals, I do so with a view to being positive and constructive. I have accepted proposals that had previously been turned down, and I have just accepted four proposals to create, transform or expand integrated schools. I shall consider further proposals constructively, but each proposal must be considered on its merits and on the basis of the legal framework pertaining; unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary to turn one down.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Mark Francois: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 January.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our condolences to the families and friends of the two servicemen killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq over the Christmas recess. They were Lance Bombardier James Dwyer of 29 Commando Regiment and Sergeant Graham Hesketh from 2nd Battalion, the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment. We also send our profound sympathy to the family and friends of Sergeant Wayne Rees, of the Queen's Royal Lancers, who died at the weekend while on patrol in Iraq. They were performing vital roles in working for the security of our country and the wider world, and we send our sympathy and our prayers to their families.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Mark Francois: Traditionally when a Government Back Bencher refuses to toe the line, they are invited to a little interview without coffee with the Government Chief Whip, but what does the Prime Minister do when collective responsibility has effectively collapsed and his Chief Whip, aided and abetted by the Home Secretary and his party chairman, has become a rebel on national health service cuts, in defiance of his health policy?

Tony Blair: Unsurprisingly, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. MPs who are Ministers are perfectly entitled to take part in local consultationsit is not even a local decision that has been made in my right hon. Friends' constituencies. What is utterly absurd is to be in the Conservative party's position: having opposed all the additional investment in the national health service, the Conservatives now oppose each and every change in principle.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: There was much speculation last week about the future size of the Royal Navy surface fleet. That has caused concern in my constituencyPortsmouth is the historic home of the Royal Navycoming as it does on the back of the naval base review. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the Royal Navy plays a fundamental role in defending our national security, and that it should have the resources necessary to perform the vital tasks that we ask it to do?

Tony Blair: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, which is why, in terms of investment in new ships, we have the largest warship building programme that we have had for many years in this country, and why, as opposed to the position under the Conservative Government, we are increasing defence spending in real terms year on year. Let me say to my hon. Friend that I understand that 17,000 people are employed in the Portsmouth naval base, including 8,800 civilians, and that there are a further 26,000 jobs in the wider defence industries in the region. It therefore performs a vital task, not only for Portsmouth and the region, but for our country's security.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Lance Bombardier James Dwyer, Sergeant Graham Hesketh and Sergeant Wayne Rees. They died serving their country and we honour their memory.
	Yesterday, the police revealed that details of British criminals, including rapists and murderers, who have committed offences abroad were sitting in boxes in the Home Office and that nothing had been done. Can the Prime Minister at least reassure us that all their details have now been entered on the police national computer and, where appropriate, the sex offenders register?

Tony Blair: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Home Secretary will make a statement immediately after I sit down, but I can tell him that the Home Secretary has been informed this morning by the Association of Chief Police Officers that every one of the most serious offenders that it has identifiedon whom there is sufficient detail to be put on the police national computerhave now been entered on the system. Let me make one thing clear: until May of last year, there was no proper system, not merely in this country but elsewhere in Europe, for the details of people who have committed offences in other countries to be given to Britain, or indeed to other Europe countries, as may be. The situation changed as a result of the decision taken by the November 2005 Justice and Home Affairs Council. Since May 2006, ACPO has been working through all the cases to make sure that there is proper protection for the public.

David Cameron: Let us be clear about what the Prime Minister has just said: the names of those people have been sitting in box files and he is admitting today that not all their details have been put on the police national computer. The Prime Minister has confirmed that yet again the Government have failed in their central duty to protect the public. Let us also be clear: of the 525 serious criminals, there are 25 rapists, 29 paedophiles and five murderers. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that none of those very dangerous people has been working with children since their conviction?

Tony Blair: The Home Secretary will make a statement in a moment that covers precisely that point. However, let me just make one thing clear. Before May 2006, there were no proper details; indeed, before 1999, no details of any sort whatever were kept. Between 1999 and May 2006, details were sent under the old voluntary system that used to apply in Europe. Very often, however, those details were not sufficient to allow us to identify people properly. That is why I said that those on whom proper information was sent to us by other European countries have been entered on the police national computer. In so far as insufficient details have not been sent to us, that is not, with respect, the fault of the Home Office but of those people who have been sending the details from other countries. All the way through there was, of course, an attempt to improve the system; however, it was only when Europe took a decision to make compulsory what had previously been voluntary that we were able to deal with the backlog satisfactorily.

David Cameron: Let us be clear: I asked the Prime Minister for a guarantee and he simply cannot give one. His answer underlines just how serious this is. There are rapists, murderers and paedophiles at large in Britain who could have got through the net and could have been working with children in the NHS, in social services or in our schools. The Prime Minister says that the Home Secretary will give a statement, but is not it the fact that the Home Office is part of the problem? Last night, the Home Office said that details of the serious offenders had all been entered into the computerthat is what it said. This morning, a Home Office Minister said that they had not all been entered. Why does the Home Office keep giving such misleading information about such an important matter?

Tony Blair: It is not giving misleading information [Interruption.] As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman beforehand, while the system was voluntary in the rest of Europe, when details were provided on a voluntary basis, there were often not sufficient details to allow people to be put on the police national computer. Now that we have a compulsory requirement, all those for whom there is sufficient detail are, as I understand it, now on the police national computer. It is correct that it is important that we make sure that from now onnow there is a compulsory system in placeall the information is entered properly; but before that decision was taken in Europe, some countries, despite the fact that obviously we wanted greater amounts of information, did not provide it. As a result of the decision taken in December 2005, as I explained to the right hon. Gentleman, that information is now given on a compulsory basis.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister has completely failed to answer the question. Why is it that last night the Home Office said one thing, but this morning the junior Minister said something completely different? On taking office, the Home Secretary said that he would have a fundamental review of his Department. A hundred days later, he said, Job done, yet we now know that 500 criminals are on the loose and his Department did virtually nothing about it. Is not it the case that if one of those dangerous criminals is found to have been working with vulnerable adults or with children, the Home Secretary will not be able to run away from responsibility for it?

Tony Blair: No one is seeking to do that. I thought that I had explained the position to the right hon. Gentleman, but let me explain it again to him. All the people for whom there is sufficient information are on the police national computer, but as for those who are part of the backlog of cases, and where the information was delivered to us when doing so was only voluntary, not compulsory, there may be some of those for whom there is insufficient information. That is not the fault of the Home Office. In respect of those for whom there is sufficient information, they, I am now informed, are all on the police national computer.

David Cameron: Does not this go to a much bigger problem about the Home Office? We have had illegal immigrants working in the Home Office, endless escapes from open prisons, and foreign prisoners released and not deported, and now there is this latest fiasco. Let me make a constructive suggestion to the Prime Minister. The Home Office is a huge Department, covering prisons, probation, immigration, criminal justice and terrorism. Will the Prime Minister take up my suggestion that there should now be a separate Home Office Minister responsible for terrorism, who sits in the Cabinet alongside the Home Secretary? We are on our fourth failing Home Secretary; would not that suggestion at least give him some chance of doing his job properly?

Tony Blair: No, I am afraid that I do not think that that is the right way to proceed on security. Let me just make one thing clear in relation to absconds, which the right hon. Gentleman also mentioned. Absconds from open conditions are at their lowest level since we came to office, and absconds from closed conditions are at their lowest level.  [Interruption.] Let me give him the facts. The facts are that, prior to 1997, some 1,300 prisoners escaped. For the 10 years since 1997, the figure is 137. There have, of course, been several category A escapes, including when he was at the Home Office as an adviser, but there have been no category A escapes since we came to power.

Peter Kilfoyle: Last year, I had the good fortune to be operated on by Mr. Aung Oo, who leads an excellent surgical team at the Liverpool Broadgreen cardiothoracic centre. I would like the Prime Minister to offer reassurances to people in centres of excellence such as that centre and the Walton centre for neurology and neurosurgery that the funding and support that has been given hitherto, and that has gained such marvellous results, will be maintained in future.

Tony Blair: I am sure that we will continue to make strong investment in the health service in my hon. Friend's area, as in others, and may I say that I am delighted to see him back and well in the House [Interruption.]so that he can continue that vociferous support that he has given over the years. His example showsand this is worth emphasising, as we get a lot of negative stories about the health servicethat there is fantastic work done by the national health service, day in, day out, in this country. The national health service is an improving service; it is improving as a result of investment, but also as the result of the dedicated staff whom he mentioned.

Menzies Campbell: I join the Prime Minister in his expressions of sympathy and condolence. Given that the Prime Minister and President Bush are in agreement about strategy in Iraq, and that later today President Bush will announce the deployment of 22,000 additional American troops to Iraq, how many British troops is the Prime Minister considering sending?

Tony Blair: President Bush, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman just indicated, will set out the policy for the United States forces, in particular in respect of Baghdad, later today. Let me just make one thing very clear, however: in relation to Basra, the situation is different in some very critical respects.
	First of all, in respect of Basra, we do not have the same Sunni-Shi'a sectarian violence, we do not have al-Qaeda operating in the same way, and we do not have the Sunni insurgency operating in the same way. As he knows, there has been an operation that the British have been conducting in Basra over the past few months, which will be completed in the next few weeks. That operation, I am pleased to say, has been successful up to now. That will allow the Iraqis to take over more and more control of their own policing and security in Basra. The purpose of the American planand it is for President Bush to announce itwill be precisely the same: it is in order to allow the Iraqi capability to take over security progressively, over time. The situation in Baghdad is different from the situation in Basra.

Menzies Campbell: The assumption behind that answer is that there will be no displacement of terrorist activity from Baghdad to Basra, but it is difficult to make such an assumption at this stage. At the weekend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that he favours an independent foreign policy. Do we have to wait for the resignation of the Prime Minister before we get one?

Tony Blair: In my view, the alliance of Britain with the United States of AmericaI assume that that is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is attackingis in the British national interest, and it is an important part of our foreign policy. Britain has two great relationships in the worldone with America and the other with Europeand we should maintain both and keep them strong.

Dawn Butler: 2007 heralds a new year [ Interruption. ] It does to us. Will my right hon. Friend make a statement to the House about whether we will see a new, improved policy in Iraq?

Tony Blair: In respect of British policy in Iraq, it remains as we set it out in the weeks leading up to today. However, once the operation in Basra is properly concluded, yes, it would be appropriate to report to the House. I am very happy to do so, but it is right that that takes place when the operation in Basra has concluded.

Sandra Gidley: Many welcome the introduction of police community support officers. In Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, 539 CSOs were planned and funding promised, but only 333 will be in place as a result of recent Government cutbacks. Why are the Government rowing back on the Prime Minister's promise to tackle antisocial behaviour, and is not this just another broken promise?

Tony Blair: Just occasionally, the Liberal Democrats' nerve takes even me by surprise. I would point out to the hon. Lady that they opposed all our antisocial behaviour measures. I cannot recall offhand, but I think that they even opposed community support officers at the time. At the request of local police chiefs, we have said that it is for them to decide the best way to deliver neighbourhood policing, but we are going to deliver neighbourhood policing in every part of the country. In the hon. Lady's area, like others, there has been a massive increase in the amount of investment that we put into the police.

Stuart Bell: As we have embarked on the German presidency of the European Union, will the Prime Minister tell the House what discussions he has had or proposes to have with the German Chancellor about relaunching the Quartet discussions on the middle east peace process, building on his own recent visit to the area?

Tony Blair: I have discussed that at length with the German Chancellor, and I hope that there will be a meeting of the Quartet in the next few weeks. It is now very important to create a situation in which we build the capacity of the Palestinian Authority; we ensure that the suffering of the Palestinian people is alleviated and that proper money gets through to the Palestinians for the basic services that they need; if at all possible we get the release not just of Corporal Shalit but of the Palestinian prisoners likewise; and we set out a framework for political negotiation leading to a negotiated solution between Israel and Palestine.
	I hope very much that in the next few weeks we will be able to announce some progress on that issue which, of course, is an important part of the wider picture in the middle east, affecting discussions in relation to Iraq as well. I said that I would report back on the situation in respect of British forces in Iraq, and I hope that I will also be able to say something about the middle east at that time.

Andrew George: In the past 40 years, housing stock in Cornwall has more than doubledin fact, it has grown faster than almost anywhere else in the countryyet local people's housing problems have worsened dramatically. Last year in my constituency, five times as many properties were sold to second-home buyers as to first-time buyers. When will the Government give areas such as Cornwall planning and other powers to make sure that families stand a chance of securing even a modest affordable home of their own?

Tony Blair: That is a serious problem in Cornwall and elsewhere. We have significantly increased the amount of funding that we have given for social rented accommodation and social housing. We have increased the funding dramatically and also the number of homes, but as the hon. Gentleman rightly implies, the need is increasing. That is why we are looking, for example, at shared equity schemes. I had a meeting yesterday with those engaged in providing social housing about how we can increase the ability of the arm's length management organisations and the tenant management associations to take on more of the burden of providing new social housing. We must keep up the investmentby 2010 we will have put in about 20 billion. We are constantly looking at new and innovative ways in which we can increase social rented accommodation, but we must do that within the budgetary constraints within which we operate.

Peter Soulsby: The Prime Minister will be aware of Age Concern's Fight the Freeze campaign, which includes a call for the Government's excellent winter fuel payments to be protected and extended to help tackle excess winter debts among the elderly. The campaign was taken up by the  Leicester Mercury, with an amazing response of over 1,000 readers backing it within the first week. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the campaign, and will he discuss with his colleagues ways of safeguarding the future of winter fuel payments and making sure that they match rising fuel prices?

Tony Blair: I understand the importance of the  Leicester Mercury campaign. As my hon. Friend indicated, we have provided an immense amount of additional help to pensionersthe 200 winter fuel allowance, with a further 100 for those over 80, the free TV licence for the over-75s, and the additional money through the pension credit, which has lifted some 2 million pensioners out of acute hardship over the past 10 yearsbut we constantly look to see what more we can do. I know that the campaign to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention will form an important part of our considerations.

Robert Wilson: If budget deficits, ward closures, redundancies and cuts in patient care constitute the best ever year for the NHS in 2006, will 2007 be just as successful?

Tony Blair: First, let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that last Friday we had the lowest figures for waiting lists since we have had waiting lists400,000 down from what we inherited. We had a report on heart disease which shows that we are saving tens of thousands of lives a year. We have the best cancer provision that we have had for years. In relation to the work force, we have 300,000 extra people, including 85,000 extra nurses, in the national health service. Finally, let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that his policy is to oppose the investment in the national health service. Having opposed the investment, the Conservative party opposes any change that will deliver better services for patients.

Andrew Dismore: Conservative Barnet council has obtained only a tiny number of antisocial behaviour ordersa very poor record compared with other authorities. Residents are frustrated by the council's timid approach, and the police are concerned about delays and adjournments at the magistrates court. What can my right hon. Friend do to achieve greater consistency in ASBO applications and results, to ensure that everyone has the same protection from the yobs who make their lives a misery?

Tony Blair: It is a shame if local authorities such as the one in my hon. Friend's constituency are not using the powers that are available. Those powers in relation to antisocial behaviour orders have made a dramatic difference in various parts of the country where those orders are being used. Recent publicity was given to the fact that 50 per cent. of them are breached, but that means that 50 per cent. are working. That is a massive achievement in respect of this type of punishment. Of the orders that are breached, more than half of those people go to prison, so there is a tremendous amount that can now be done in local areas through the new antisocial behaviour legislation and through the new powers that have been given to the police. My hon. Friend is right. Those powers should be used in future by local authorities, and if they are not being used by local authorities, local people know what to do, which is to vote Labour.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Prime Minister is making a statement today about national security in Northern Ireland. Will he assure the House that the measures that he is announcing will not in any way compromise national security or undermine the capacity of our security services to combat terrorism, whether domestic or international?

Tony Blair: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. It is in the interests of our security services and in the interests of local civic policing that we make it clear that MI5 is not going to have anything to do with local civic policingthat is a matter for the local policing authoritiesbut we will of course do nothing that compromises the security of this country.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Prime Minister share the widespread concern around the world at the unilateral action of the United States in bombing Somalia a couple of days ago and again yesterday? Does not he think that that bombardment will merely intensify the already desperate situation for the people of Somalia, when what is required is not foreign intervention but a peace process in Somalia?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent: of course what is in the interests of everyone in Somalia is to have a peace process that works properly. He will be aware, however, that some of the extremists who have been using methods of violence to get their way in Somalia pose a threat not just to the outside world but to people in Somalia as well. When we look around different parts of the world today, we can see this global terrorism. It is a clear ideology and a clear strategy, and it is right that wherever it is attempting to warp local decision making and to prevent people from getting the type of life they want, we should be there standing up and supporting those who are combating that terrorism and giving people the chance to live in better circumstances.

Mark Prisk: Last month, the Government made two announcements affecting Hertfordshire: first, that we should build houses to accommodate another 190,000 people; and secondly, that we should cut our health services and close hospital wards. Could the Prime Minister tell me whether that brilliant combination was deliberate or just the usual ministerial incompetence?

Tony Blair: Let me again point out the facts to the hon. Gentleman. In fact, as he knows, there has been an immense amount of additional funding into his local health service [Interruption.] The funding increase has been somewhere in the region of 30 per cent., and the new primary care trust will have increases of more than 100 million. In any health service, there will be changes that are necessary to give us the best type of services for the future; that applies in his constituency as elsewhere. Whatever short-term campaign the Conservatives may mount, they are losing all credibility by ending up opposing in principle any changes in the health service at all [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister speak.

Tony Blair: As for housing, whereas the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members oppose any extension of housing, the shadow Chancellor made the position absolutely clear when he said, in effect, that we need a supply of new housing, but not in his area. I do not think that that is very practical.

Mary Creagh: In Wakefield, we have seen the number of students getting five good GCSE passes increase from 37 per cent. in 1997 to 57 per cent. recently. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating students on that great achievement, as well as their teachers and parents and, of course, the schools in Wakefield, which were among the first in the country all to achieve specialist status?

Tony Blair: I am delighted to give my congratulations to the schools in Wakefield and to all those who have worked so hard to raise standards. Whereas in 1997 fewer than half45 per cent.of pupils got five good GCSEs, the figure is almost 60 per cent. today. If we include English and maths, the figure used to be 35 per cent., whereas it is now over 45 per cent. The most remarkable fact is this: when we came to power in 1997, there were more than 600 schools where fewer than 25 per cent. of pupils got five good GCSEs and just 80 schools in the whole country[Hon. Members: What about the next question?] I am going to finish in plenty of time. Today, there are 47 schools with fewer than 25 per cent. getting five good GCSEs and more than 600 schools with a rate of over 70 per cent.a dramatic reversal under this Labour Government.

Lembit �pik: rose

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Lembit �pik: Not wishing to be cheeky, I thank the House for being so happy that I am so lucky. I should point out that the other sister is still single. On the more serious matter of motor neurone disease, the Prime Minister has received hundreds of letters praising his vision and that of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) to cure MND. Does the Prime Minister know that Britain spends more than 241 million a year on treating those with MND? A cure is therefore also a prudent financial investment, saving literally billions of pounds as well as thousands of lives. When will the Government decide whether to match fund the 7.5 million that the Motor Neurone Disease Association is raising to help cure the deadly disease and create a world free of MND?

Tony Blair: The Minister is considering the proposal that the Motor Neurone Disease Association submitted on funding, and I hope that we can respond as soon as possible. I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) on his extraordinary work for the Motor Neurone Disease Association and I hope that he continues with it.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: This Sunday, Mr. Putin shut off all the oil supplies to several countries in Europe, thus seriously threatening their energy and fuel supplies. Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to tell me what we will do in this country to ensure that we are not dependent on individuals who would try to blackmail us on energy and that we become energy proficient and productive?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am delighted that the European Commission, following on from the discussions at the Hampton Court informal summit in October 2005, has today put forward important proposals on climate change and protecting the environment, and on energy security and supply. It is important that we as a country ensure that our energy supply is secure for the long term. In my view, that requires a diverse supply of energy and the decisions that we will have to make when the energy White Paper is published in March are, therefore, very important. I say again that we need to ensure that replacing our nuclear power stations is one important part of the deal. In the past few months, we have signed contracts with, for example, Norway to guarantee 30 per cent. of our gas from it in the next few years. We are in the process of replacing our nuclear power stations, but energy security for this country will be as important in the next decade as many of the crucial security issues of past years. If we do not get the decisions right quickly, we will pay a heavy price in future.

Criminal Records Backlog

John Reid: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the backlog of unrecorded overseas crimes committed by British citizens abroad. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) for the late arrival of the statement. As he probably saw from the papers being passed along the Front Bench, the inconvenience was mutual.
	I intend to outline the situation up to May 2006when the Association of Chief Police Officers became the lead organisationthe current situation, and the further actions for which I have asked today. No hon. Member should be under the illusion that I do not regard the subject as serious.
	First, let me outline the situation to May 2006. Since 1959, there has been a Council of Europe convention on mutual legal assistance, which established the expectation that the more than 40 member countries would inform each other of the criminal convictions of their citizens while in another member country. That was the position from 1959 until last year. The system had several grave weaknesses.
	First, implementation of the system for exchanging the information was patchy across Europe. Secondly, much of the information was of poor qualityfor example, on some occasions, it constituted just a name. Thirdly, the process for handling the incoming notifications when they arrive in the United Kingdom was fragmented and piecemeal. There were therefore fundamental flaws in both the sending and the receipt of information.
	It was agreed that this situation should be improved at European level, and in 2005 a European Union Council decision made it mandatory for all member states to have a central authority in each country for receiving and sending such information, to counter the fundamental flaws of the prevailing system. In March 2006, it was decided by my predecessorin my view completely correctlythat the central authority for this country would be the Association of Chief Police Officers. I think that I am correct in saying that we were among the first in the European Union to appoint such an authority to improve the exchange of such information. A backlog of 27,500 notifications was passed to ACPO, and its team was operational by May last year.
	Since then, ACPO has sifted through all the approximately 27,500 notifications and carried out a priority risk assessment on them. This identified 540 most serious offenders on the police's own definition. All the notifications relating to the most serious offenders that had enough information to be entered on the police national computer and which were not already on the computer as a result of Interpol work have now been put on it. Together, that means that 260 of the 540 serious notifications are on the police national computer. The remaining 280 cannot be entered on the PNC and are the subject of further inquiries to the notifying country to get more details to try to establish the identity of the offender. I should make it clear that the 280 cases are not necessarily notifications received since May last year or, indeed, since this Government came to office. However, we are having their origin checked.
	I shall now outline the actions that I have asked to be taken. As the House will know, I regard protecting the public as my highest priority, and I know that that view is shared by the whole House. I therefore consider the past failings in the system to be a very serious matter, and I regard the response of my predecessor to have been a correct response to those failings. However, I also believe that the system now operating puts responsibility in the right place.
	I want to express my gratitude to the Association of Chief Police Officers for the action that it has taken and for the assistance that it has given me this morning. I have today met Ministers and my officials, the president of ACPO and the chief executive of the Criminal Records Bureau. I have asked ACPO for an assurance that every one of the more serious offenders that it has identified and on whom there is sufficient information has now been entered on the police national computer. I have been given that assurance.
	Let me now set out the actions that I have taken as a result of the past 24 hours. I have asked the permanent secretary at the Home Office to set up an inquiry into the Home Office's handling of these notifications. This will include determining a chronology of events, the practices and procedures in place at different times, whether appropriate action was taken, and the lessons to be learned. I have asked that every effort be made to complete this inquiry within six weeks.
	In addition, I have asked my officials, ACPO, the CRB and the probation service, in liaison with any other Department should that be necessary, to ensure that all appropriate public protection steps are taken. In particular, I have asked the CRB to check whether there are any disclosures to employers in respect of the most serious offenders who have been identified that ought to be looked at again in the light of that new information. I expect to have that information in a matter of days.
	I have also asked the police and the probation service to ensure that all sex offenders who have been identified through that process are subject to appropriate monitoring in line with the public protection arrangements that would be expected if there had been a conviction in this country.
	Finally, I have asked ACPO and the CRB to accelerate the timetable to process the remainder of the backlogthat is, those cases that have not been identified as serious, which involve less serious offenders. As of this morning, that timetable, due to less serious offenders being involved, was envisaged to be 12 months. I have also asked them, with extra resources, to provide that within three months. They hope to complete it within that time scale.
	As I hope is now clear to the House, this is a problem that was some years in the making. By May 2006, a better system had been established and was operational. I take full responsibility now for ensuring that that new system operates effectively to protect the public and that the lessons of past failings are properly learned.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for the advance notice of his statement, although I understand entirely why it came not quite as early as normal.
	The British public today will be wondering when on earth this catalogue of blunders at the Home Office will come to an end. None of the Government's excuses, I am afraid, explains why the last three years have been the worst in the 200-year history of the Home Office. That is because the Department has been overwhelmed by an avalanche of legislation, regulation, targets and headline-grabbing initiatives, and by strategic failure on immigration, criminal justice, prisons and a variety of other areas. So Ministers have the major responsibility for this, but the responsibility is even more specific and it means that the Home Secretary can no longer go on blaming civil servants or police officers. Nor does the latest excuse that he has no idea what is happening in his Department auger well for the security of the nation.
	This is a database failure. It is the latest in a series of database failures. Five years ago, we had the Soham tragedy, in part because of police and Home Office database failures. There have been failures on the sex offenders register, the police fingerprint database and the CRBnotably, two weeks after the right hon. Gentleman took over as Home Secretary. Did no Minister in the last eight months, as a result of those failures, ask, Are there any weaknesses or omissions on the police national computer? That is a straightforward, basic question. If no Minister asked it, why not? I would expect such basic scrutiny from a junior manager working in any business, let alone a Minister working in one of the most important Departments of State.
	The right hon. Gentleman became Home Secretary on 5 May 2006. On 21 May, the UK central authority for the exchange of criminal records was set up, as we have been told today, transferring responsibility for those records from the Home Office to ACPO. Ministers will have received a submission on that transfer. Did he not ask the simple question whether there were any problems with it? After he took office, he told us that he had conducted a fundamental review across his Department. Did he ask whether all the databases had complete integrity? How fundamental is an inquiry that misses 27,000 files sitting on a desk for up to six years?
	In practical public safety terms, will the Home Secretary tell the House, first, when the transfer will be complete? In particular, when will the 280 serious criminals be tracked down? I could not quite get that from what he said in his statement. Secondly, when will the sex offenders register, the Criminal Records Bureau and other relevant databases have been updated and checked back to see that no one has been missed in the gap since 1999? Thirdly, has he now checked for any other weaknesses in those databases? For example, if people from abroad who are given the right to work in the UK have criminal records, is he certain that those records are on the police national computer? If not known about, that is a serious issue.
	I am afraid that the public will have little faith in yet another review led by a civil servant. The Home Secretary can no longer blame his officials, the police or his predecessors. He has been in the job long enough to have had every chance to put the right questions. He has failed to do so. He assures us that he is in charge of his Department. Is he? If he is, when will he start shouldering the responsibility for it?

John Reid: It is normal to start my response by thanking the right hon. Gentleman for those elements of his contribution that were in some way laudatory; I could not find one today, so he will not mind if I go straight to the heart of the issue.
	My statement today was not an attempt to lay blame, but to explain. That is what the House and the public want. It was also an attempt to outline the actions, now that I have been informed of the situation, that ought to be taken.
	First, the right hon. Gentleman said that there are failings in the Home Office. That is the least newsworthy item that could be declared today. I do not think that any Secretary of State has been more open about some of those failings. Had I been told about the backlog, I assure him that I would have added it to the other failings about which I told the Home Affairs Committee in order better to tackle them.
	Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman queried whether I had asked about the integrity of systems in the Home Office. Yes, I explicitly asked all the leading officials, in the first week, to tell me everything that needed to be known about systems failures, precisely so that we could address and share that with the public. Why was I not told? That is precisely why the permanent secretary is undertaking an inquiry. Let us now get away from the process points and move on to the substance of public protection.
	I would not for one minute like the right hon. Gentleman to give the inadvertent impression that nothing has been done to improve the surveillance, monitoring and registering of people who have committed offences abroad. First, it is a major step forward that a lead organisationACPOwas appointed to ensure that the information that we sent to and received from other member states was dealt with in a systemic fashion that had integrity. That decision was taken six months before I became Home Secretary, and I applaud it.
	Secondly, ACPO has now worked through and identified all serious cases in the backlog, and every one of those that it is possible to put on the police national computer, without the entry being useless at best or disturbing the system at worst, has been put on that computer.
	Thirdly, in relation to the Soham question, the protection arrangements for children and vulnerable people have been improved significantly following Sir Michael Bichard's report. The Home Office and ACPO are now working on a new IT initiative, IMPACT, which will improve significantly the recording and sharing of information. Under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, we have established a vetting and barring scheme. That is scheduled for implementation in late 2008 and will strengthen significantly the protection of children and vulnerable adults. One of its key features is the continuous monitoring that will be introduced, by contrast with the present arrangements whereby the Criminal Records Bureau is only able to provide what information is currently held in police systems.
	Therefore, without in any way attempting to paint a rosy picture, the position is much better than it was from 1959 to 2005, during which period Governments of all persuasions have held office.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the date of transfer. I do not know whether he meant the date of transfer of the files. It was when ACPO's role was set upin the first half of last year, between January and Junethat the files would have been established, electronically and physically. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will no longer allude to his colourful but rather misleading proposition that I have been sitting in the midst of all the files since May last year. I have not.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the date of reform.  [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I cannot respond to remarks made from a sedentary position. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise other issues I will deal with them, but let me make this absolutely clear: I have now asked not only for an assurance that all the serious cases on which we have sufficient information have been entered on the computer, but for a retrospective check to be carried out with the Criminal Records Bureau to ensure that no questions have been asked about anyone who ought to have been registered on the computer.
	I am asking the police to accelerate the process of dealing with the other 27,500 cases, and I am asking the Probation Service to give me an assurance that anyone who has now been discovered to have committed an offence as a result of having been entered on the computer will be given the same level of supervision as anyone who has committed an offence in this country. I hope that all that will be done as rapidly as humanly possible.

Nicholas Clegg: The Home Secretary and his Ministers seem to have developed a novel doctrine of ministerial responsibility over the past 24 hours. If a Minister is not aware of something, we are now told, he or she can somehow not be held responsible for it. Let us be clear that ignorance is no excuse for incompetence. The British public have a simple question to ask of the Home Secretary: if he is not to be held to account for the work of his Department, who is?
	Can the Home Secretary confirm that 27,500 files relate to information collected from Council of Europe countries? Can he tell us what would happen to files on offences committed by British citizens in non-Council of Europe countries, especially countries in, say, Asia or North America where there are large numbers of British residents or visitors? Can he assure us that there are no files from those countries sitting in Home Office filing cabinets?
	I do not think the Home Secretary gave us a precise date for the completion of the CRB checks on the most serious offenders. Will he do so now, so that parents and members of the public can have a cast-iron guarantee that none of the offenders are working with children or vulnerable people?
	The Home Secretary may be aware that since April 2005 a pilot project has been running, organised by Germany, France, Belgium and Spainjoined recently, I believe, by the Czech Republicto establish a fully operational criminal records network. We are told that the United Kingdom has been very reluctant to join the project. Can the Home Secretary explain how he will deal with this crisis on a sustainable basis without committing Britain more fully to this type of international arrangement?

John Reid: I will deal with the last question first. Of course we consider all ways of improving co-operation, but no one should believe that because systems have been established they will work perfectly, even now.
	To the best of my knowledge, under the new system, all Council of Europe countries have notified us of all offences, and all those offences are being entered on the computer immediately by ACPO.
	I can tell the hon. Gentleman that since I became Secretary of State, none of the cases that have come in have added to the backlog. I accept responsibility for sorting the problem out, but unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, what I cannot tell him is that I was presiding over it from 1959 until last May. I was not. I will accept responsibility for sorting out the problem, but it has developed over many years. Even now, with the new system, when I ask how many notifications we have received from Spain, for instance, the answer is none. I find it very difficult to believe that we have had no one convicted of offences in Spain. That illustrates some of the problems that we are experiencing, even with a strengthened system.
	We will continue to do what we can, and I accept full responsibility. It is a question of establishing the facts, and I have asked the permanent secretary to do that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the time scale. I hope and expect that we shall have gone through the backlog of 27,500 less serious cases within a few monthsthree months, I hope, although I cannot absolutely pledge that. He also asked an important question about the retrospective checking of people who are now on the computer but may not have been for a long time. I am also concerned about that, and I have asked the CRB to check and run it through the systems. I trust that the process will not take months or even weeks; I hope to have received the information by the end of this week. I will in any case present a written statement to the House when appropriate, to update Members on what is happening.
	The backlog of 27,500 files that built up at some stage between 1959 and 2006probably from the mid-1990s onwards, but that is part of what I am trying to establishrelates mainly to the 45 or so Council of Europe member states to which the convention on mutual legal assistance relates. That arrangement was even less systematic that the present one. As I have said, there were two flaws. First, the information that came to the United Kingdom was fragmentary, piecemeal and ad hoc, and secondly the system at this end, in the Home Office, was inadequate to deal with that. Had I known about those failings I would have incorporated them in the report that I gave the Home Affairs Committee, along with the other failings in the system.
	We are remedying those failings now. A huge amount of work is being done by Home Office officials to reform the Home Office, and I praise them for that work. My only regret is that because they did not, apparently, tell me about it at the time, something that happened a considerable time ago is being blamed on officials as if it were happening now. Actually, it is on its way to being remedied now. What has happened is that we have only just found out about a problem that all of us should perhaps have known about some time ago.

John Denham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware that when the incoming Labour Government began to set up the Criminal Records Bureau, it became apparent that we could not even be sure that convictions in this country were being entered on the police national computer? Laxity in these affairs long predates my right hon. Friend's time as Home Secretary, and stretches back over other Governments.
	May I point out to my right hon. Friend the real purpose of the Hampshire chief constable's contribution to our Committee session yesterday? It was not to draw attention to past problems, which he regards as being on the way to solution, but to report that we are continuing to receive notification from other European states that contains too little information to allow individuals to be positively identified and registered on the national computer. Will my right hon. Friend add to his list of priorities a real drive in Europe to sort out the problem of the quality of data, so that we can establish the information on the computer and so that we are not still debating this issue in two or three years' time?

John Reid: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the information that he elicited yesterday, which is very helpful to all of us.  [Laughter.] This is a serious problem, and the information was helpful in spurring further action with the aim of establishing a process of constant improvement.
	As my right hon. Friend says, over the past few decades public expectations of this as of other public services have become much higher. The public are entitled to demand more, as is the House, and I will try to respond. It is also the case, however, that we are monitoring, categorising, listing and registering, and through those actions protecting the public better than we were several decades ago.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned the evidence given by the police yesterday. I am very grateful to the police for what they are doing. We have a problem that is currently being solved; but in the midst of that solution, there have been revelations about the problem as it existed before and as people had to grapple with it then. That is why I say that whatever happened previously, my predecessors were absolutely correct in taking the steps that were necessary for a speedy response to the European Union directive. We were among the first European member states to tender, and then to set up, a central authoritythe Association of Chief Police Officersto deal with the problem.
	Although we are now working on system improvement, it is by no means perfect. My right hon. Friend said that the evidence yesterday was that some European Union member states were still not giving us information in a manner that can be registered on a computer; giving us the name John Smith with no address, no background and no identification, along with some general crime is not very helpful in terms of the police computer. Even worse, some states appear to have given us no notification of anybody at all, so I will certainly make that one of my priorities as well.

Michael Howard: The Home Secretary, in the usual discreditable way that he and his colleagues adopt, has sought to spread some of the blame for this lamentable state of affairs to the previous Administration, but less than an hour ago the Prime Minister told the House that the voluntary transfer of information commenced in 1999, and I am sure that the Prime Minister was carefully briefed on that matter. Is not the simple truth that, since 1999, thousands of records of this kind have been received at the Home Office, have been put into boxes at the Home Office and have been left to gather dust at the Home Office? Is that not a disgraceful state of affairs, for which this Government are entirely responsible?

John Reid: I think that the date that the Prime Minister might have mentioned was 1959, as regards the voluntary scheme.

Michael Howard: No, 1999.

John Reid: The year is 1959 for the European Council convention on the exchange of informationthe mutual legal aid. Information was exchanged from 1959.  [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman is challenging me on the basis that all the files in the backlog are from 1999 onwards. I think that he will find that that is incorrect, and I hope that if he does find that it is incorrect he will be apologetic about what he said about me attempting, in discreditable fashion, to blame somebody. I am not attempting to blame anybody; I am attempting to explain how a problem arose and to address the problem.
	I also say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the public are less interested in the blame game and party politics than they are in the protection of themselves, their families and their children, which is what I am interested in.

Ann Cryer: I seek clarification on a small point. Yesterday's Home Affairs Committee sitting was entirely about home affairs issues relating to Europe. My right hon. Friend mentioned Interpol in his statement; yesterday, we talked about Europol. Can I understand from what my right hon. Friend says that ACPO is now receiving information from Interpol, and therefore from around the world, rather than just from Europe?

John Reid: Interpol has played an active part. Let me give an exampleit is a rather complex one, but Members demand and expect detailed answers to such points. When ACPO received the filessome electronically, others physicallyit sifted through them; it conducted what we would call a triage, sorting them into more serious and less serious offences. Of the 540 more serious offences, it transpired that 149 were already on the police national computer because they had been put on it by Interpol. That means that Interpol had already been playing an active role.
	We will certainly encourage it and other institutions, including the European Union and its member states, to make information available. That is not, however, quite as simple as we would all want it to be. For example, only three countries in Europe have a sex offenders register: the United Kingdom, Ireland and France. Other countries do not protect the public in the way that we do; we have a standard of protection that has been built up over the years. I do not make any exclusive claim for that for the Labour Government. Over a period of years, we have built up a system of protection that is in advance of that of any other country in Europe, but it still has major deficiencies, and we are trying to address them.

James Paice: The Home Secretary referred to the tragedy in Soham in my constituency, and to the fact that if there had been better communication between police forces that tragedy might not have happened. However, although that happened five years ago, the Home Secretary said that the IMPACTinformation management, prioritisation, analysis, co-ordination and taskingsystem is still being implemented. How much longer will my constituents and other people in this country have to wait before there is a system in place that ensures that everybody who has committed crimes that could mean that they are a threat to children in the future are recorded in a manner that is accessible by those who might be considering employing them?
	We should bear in mind that at the beginning of this process there was already a system in place in Scotland; the Scottish forces had a system that allowed the kind of communication that has been mentioned. Yet the Home Office ignored that and went ahead; it started to implement an IMPACT system which, as the Home Secretary has told us, is still not fully operational five years later.

John Reid: We are attempting to introduce such measures as quickly as possible, but I understand why the hon. Gentleman is concerned, and he is correct to be so.
	On more general matters, I was invited to say whether I think that what happened is serious and detrimental. I have made it publicly clear that I do think so, and we are attempting to remedy that. However, as I also pointed out, it is not as though nothing has happened since then. What has come out of that tragedy? Apart from IMPACT, we have established the vetting and barring scheme, which is scheduled for implementation in less than two years; it will significantly strengthen the protection of children and vulnerable adults. We are trying to improve the national offenders management system and the oversight of serious offenders. We have the POCAProtection of Children Act 1999register for those who might be a threat to children. We have the POVAprotection of vulnerable adultsregister for those who might be a threat to vulnerable adults. We also have what is called the sexual offenders register, although it is actually the violent and sexual offenders register. Therefore, a lot is going on in this area.
	None of that, however, excuses our inability to handle such matters in a better fashion. The task now is to make sure that we improve that much more quickly, and that we do so much more fullyand that has been under way since last May when ACPO took the lead.

Jeff Ennis: Given that many of the problems that have affected our Government since we came to power have emanated from the Home Department, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time is right to give serious consideration to splitting the duties and responsibilities of the Home Department, for example by creating a new department for immigration and migration separate from the rest of Home Department responsibilities?

John Reid: My arrival at the Home Office was not without a degree of controversy. I identified what I thought were failings that had to be remedied. I said that within three months100 daysI would bring forward plans for reform. I am sorry to disappoint the House and some commentators, but I did not in fact say that I would solve the problems of the Home Office within 100 days; I said that I would bring forward plans to tackle the fundamental problems.
	Those plans were produced. One of them is a reform plan for Home Office systemsthe systems and functions, and the integrity of them. Another is a plan to reform radicallyand, hopefully, make far more efficientthe immigration and nationality department. We are proceeding with those reforms, but we keep the whole situation under review. The agency status we have proposed for the immigration and nationality department might be a big contributory factor to creating a more efficient organisation, but I have also carried out a study and review of the counter-terrorist side of the Department's responsibilities. We keep that under review. I never rule anything out, but at the moment we have a plan for the reform of the central systems and the IND, and it is better to try to implement those plans before we devise others.

James Clappison: The Home Secretary has said that he will accept responsibility for sorting this mess out, but he has been Home Secretary since last May. Does he accept any personal responsibility for how this mess has arisen in the first placeany responsibility at all?

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to comment on and take responsibility for things that happened prior to my becoming Home Secretary.  [Interruption.] No, I did not say that it was the previous Home Secretary; indeed, I said that I welcomed the previous Home Secretary's decision to sort these things out by putting the matter to ACPO and being among the first in Europe to take action. All I am pointing out is that I accept the responsibility for dealing with this, but as I said in my statement it is a problem that has been mounting over the decades.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) pointed out the reference to 1999. That was made because accurate records began only in 1999. I am reliably informed by my officials that we have no accurate records for the period during which the right hon. and learned Gentleman presided over the Home Office. However, I accept full responsibility. That is why I am in front of the House, volunteering a statement, within 24 hours of the discovering that there was a problem, albeit some time ago.

Mark Durkan: Will the Home Secretary separate out some of the questions about whether Ministers knew about this or would have had cause to ask about it in the past, because MPs clearly did not know about it or have cause for concern? Would the offenders concerned have had any reason to know that they were not on the national computer, or can we hope that they were living and behaving under the assumption that they were? Does the Home Secretary feel any unease about the fact that the new information becoming available, including that about countries that have not passed on information, might come as some comfort to those offenders? We all need to address that issue, not the political spat about who knew what, when.

John Reid: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who addresses the practical problems and the protection of the public. That is what the public are interested in, and it is what I am interested in. I cannot guess, and it would be a guess, at the attitude of some of these offenders or whether that attitude was shaped by a realisation that their names had not been placed where they thought they might be.
	The hon. Gentleman has hit on a serious point. Even if these names are now being put on the computer and we are tackling the problem as a result of the decision of the previous Home Secretary to pass the matter to ACPO, there was a gap. Can we be sure that during that time people did not get positions that they ought to have been prevented from getting because their name should have been on the computer? I spoke this morning to the Criminal Records Bureau, and said that I wanted it to check with utmost speed that there is no one in a job or position of trust who would have been prevented from getting it had their name been on the police computer and various registers more speedily. I have asked the CRB to give me the answer to that question by the end of this week, and I assure my hon. Friend that I will keep the House informed of these matters.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. There is still deep concern about this matter and a fear that proper checks and disclosures may not have been carried out correctly on a number of these people, who may now be employed back in the UK. I welcome some of what he said, particularly about the fact that the records have now all been sifted and a priority assessment carried out to identify the 540 most serious cases. I welcome the fact that there is now notification of whether data exist concerning those on the PNC.
	I remain very anxious, however, that 280 of the most serious casesmore than halfcannot yet be notified and are subject to further inquiry. To allay public fears, particularly in Scotland, can the Home Secretary assure us that as notifications to the police national computer are carried out, comparable and parallel updates are made to data held by the Scottish Criminal Records Bureau, where appropriate? That would at least put some minds to rest in Scotland that as data are found and notification is completed, comparable Scottish records are updated in parallel.

John Reid: That is a very important point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about what has been achieved so far. He is quite right to ask about the gaps. I asked the CRB this morning to give me advice and to try to ensure that this information goes on all the various registers that should have it. I will make sure that that includes the Scottish CRB, too. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have a list of, for instance, football hooligans, those who might be a threat to children, those who might be a threat to vulnerable adults and those who might be violent and sexual offendersViSORas well as the police national computer. He correctly points out that there are parallel or separate organisations in Scotland, and I will ensure that what he requests is done.

Gisela Stuart: Given that part of the problem is the poor quality of information, is the Home Secretary seeking meetings with his fellow Interior Ministers in the European Union to address the problem? Does he feel that if we improved our system of identification and registration of residency, he would be greatly helped?

John Reid: I entirely agree on both points. If European Union members act co-operatively on certain major subjects, for the practical benefit of their populations, we will greatly enhance the status of the European Union in the eyes of our public. If they spent more time doing that than they do attempting to harmonise where harmonisation is not necessary, we would all benefit in practical terms in this country and in the EU more widely.
	I turn to my hon. Friend's second, and most important, point. In a spirit of constructive engagement I ask Members in all parts of the House to consider that one of the most fundamental flaws of the last few decades in the exchange of all this information is the inability to identify the offenders from country to country, and nothing would be a bigger boost to our ability to protect the public than some form of identity management. ID cards are an important consideration in the future of the protection of the public, and quite frankly it ill behoves people to stand up and demand the ends that they say the public want and then on every occasion oppose the means of achieving those ends.

John Butterfill: Does the Home Secretary agree that the responsibilities that have been given to ACPO are very demanding and go a long way beyond anything that it has previously been responsible for? What resources has he made available to ACPO? How much has it cost? Are ACPO staff now satisfied that they have adequate resources to fulfil the task that he has given them?

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for a very important point. I should point out that ACPOwhich has been helpful this morning as ever, and I pay tribute to itis not a conscript. It has not had this task imposed on it. As a result of the European directive at the end of 2005, which said that every country should have a lead body for sending out and receiving the information, we put the job out to tender, and ACPO put in a bid and won. That is why I say that even though we are discussing a historical problem with current ramifications, a solution is already under way because ACPO has taken on the role of lead body and is working through the problem. As for doing things a little quicker as a result of my perusal of the situation, if more resources are necessary, we will discuss that with ACPO. We started those discussions this morning.

Diane Abbott: The House is grateful to the Home Secretary for his statement. He has explained that there are 280 serious cases that cannot be entered on the police national computer and are the subject of further inquiries. Is there any sort of deadline for entering those 280 cases and, if so, will he inform the House what it is?

John Reid: There is not a deadline because it would be artificial. The cases cannot be entered not only because it would not add anything to put in a name and very little else, but because it would damage the existing system if there were hundreds of cases that were nothing but a name. The problem is that we are moving from a system that was completely piecemeal and fragmentaryquite frankly, it fell into disuseto one that is meant to involve the systematic and organised transfer of information, although it is obvious that people are not keeping to the basic format for the necessary information that should be exchanged. We have to try to ensure that we go back through the cases with the countries. Some of the files are indecipherablethey just cannot be readnot because they are in a different language, but because of their scribbled manner. The records are not all typed case files; some are written notifications. There is thus a real problem. We will do that work as soon as possible. As soon as the information is in a fit state to go on the computer, it now goes on it. There is no backlog for perusal, other than the remainder of the 27,500 cases, which are the less serious files. I have asked that there should be an attempt to deal with them in the next few months, rather than in a year, as was originally planned.

Annette Brooke: Does the Home Secretary agree that there is an urgent need to reassure the public that convicted child sex offenders are not working with children at present? Is he in a position to make a statement in the very near future on the child sex offenders who have been identified alreadyI believe that there are 29 of themand what process he will follow regarding others who may be revealed?

John Reid: The hon. Lady has a long-standing interest in this and served on a Committee that considered a Bill concerned with these matters. She is absolutely right. That was why I met this morning not only the police and officials, but the Criminal Records Bureau. I have asked the bureau to run through all the information that has now been passed to it. I have asked for the 280 names to be given to the bureau and for it to go through its computer files in the next three days. By the end of the week, I hope that I will be in a position to give such confirmation, or to be able to identify anyone about whom an inquiry was made before information was received from the national computer. If there is someone in such a position who has been appointed, I will tackle that problem when we discover it.

Khalid Mahmood: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to initiate an inquiry to determine what has happened and how that should be dealt with, rather than making assumptions about who was at fault. Will he not just take the weasel words of the Opposition on this issue, which are never substantiated by any action to deal with

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is totally inappropriate to use such language, especially when we are considering a subject such as this. The hon. Gentleman should be careful about the words that he uses.

Ann Winterton: If the permanent secretary, on the conclusion of his inquiry into the matter, identifies the official who did not give the correct information in reply to the specific question posed by the Home Secretary, will that official be sacked?

John Reid: The hon. Lady makes several assumptions, one of which is that the relevant people might still be working in the Home Office. All I can say without prejudging the inquiry is that one of the reasonsnot the only onewhy I asked for it was that I found it inexplicable that such a backlog had not been brought to my attention when it was pretty obvious to everyone else, including hon. Members, that I wanted to identify the problems in the Home Office that we needed to address quite openly and then deal with them. Although I do not wish to prejudge the inquiry, we will deal with that when it comes out.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Home Secretary for his full statement and for initiating the investigation. Will he assure the House that he will ensure that this item will be on the agenda at the next meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the EU so that our partners are aware of the deficiencies in the provision of information? In respect of countries outside the EU, will he meet the Foreign Secretary to determine whether there is any way in which, through the posts abroad, she can help to lobby other Governments to ensure that they provide adequate information?

John Reid: I can say yes to both my right hon. Friend's points. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), who has been dealing with the matter with me over the past 24 hours or so, will be attending the next meeting in the near future and will raise both those points with colleagues formally and informally.

Robert Walter: The Home Secretary outlined the situation up until the time of the agreement in 2005 in the European Union and tried to reassure the House that the stricter regime put in place after that, with a single national authority in each member state, would lead to the problem being much easier to control. The original situation occurred under a Council of Europe convention involving 46 member countries. The European Union has only 27 member states, which means that 19 countries, including large ones, such as Russia and Ukraine, and others with a large British expatriate population, such as Norway and Switzerland, are not covered by the arrangements. How many cases in the backlog involve us seeking answers from countries that are not required to have a single national authority and from which we are thus unlikely to get answers?

John Reid: We can approach several institutions and we can carry out work through Interpol. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman in advance how many of the 27,000 cases that have not yet been examined in detail are of a particular nature. I would hazard a guess that around half of them might not be sufficiently detailed for us to enter them on the police national computer because about half of the 540 more serious ones were not. If that pattern is repeated, it might well be that many of the cases involve pieces of paper with notifications that are in no condition to go on the computer. However, we will pursue every avenue.
	The hon. Gentleman makes the simple point that while things might have got better under the new system, they are not perfect. I have not claimed that we have perfection. We have the European Union, beyond which there is the Council of Europe. Beyond that we have the world, so a couple of hundred countries will be sending us information that is not as perfect as it ought to be. I merely say that the system is a lot better than it was before and that it is among the best in Europe, along with the systems in France and Ireland.

Protection of Listed Vehicles

John Randall: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the establishment of a scheme to promote the maintenance and preservation of certain vehicles of cultural value; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill has its roots in the well-supported campaign to ensure the preservation and, I hope, maintenance of a Concorde in a suitably airworthy condition to enable it to be flown on what might loosely be called ceremonial occasions. As I am sure that you are aware, Mr. Speaker, Heathrow airport is extremely close to my constituency. I frequently raise issues such as the noise and pollution that are an inevitable result of such a large airport and, indeed, my determined opposition to the construction of a third runway there. However, that does not mean that I was not a fan of Concorde. I never failed to be proud of it and concede that watching Concorde fly was a truly spectacular sight, despite its ear-splitting noise.
	Of course, Concorde has now gone from our skies. The airframes were sold off to museums and collections around the world following its retirement in 2003. None are airworthy, and the ex-British Airways aircraft are in a worse state than the French ones, especially because of the decision by British Airways to order that all hydraulic pipes be drained and the electrical systems disabled on its seven Concordes. Jock Lowe, the airline's former chief Concorde pilot and fleet manager, described that decision as an act of vandalism. I am not suggesting that Concorde should be returned to regular commercial service because that is no longer a viable option. However, many would like at least one Concorde to be restored to an airworthy condition, in a similar manner to the battle of Britain memorial flight, and would hope for it to be ready to fly in time for the 2012 Olympics. Currently, there is little hope of that happening. British Airways stated in a letter to my colleague the shadow transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), that
	the technical and financial challenges and difficulties of keeping an aircraft airworthy for 'heritage' purposes are hugely prohibitive.
	However, former technicians who worked on the aircraft, and independent observers, have stated that there is no reason why Concorde cannot fly again. If it were protected by vehicular listing, it should be possible to make BA think again about its policy towards what is a British icon.
	Although I was thinking initially about Concorde, it occurred to me that very little status is given to the protection of certain vehicles of historical and cultural value. Over the years, there have been some notable success stories, such as the preservation of HMS Belfast and HMS Victory, and of the battle of Britain memorial flight that I mentioned earlier. More often than not, however, aircraft, steam engines and ships have struggled to achieve the necessary protection.
	Ships of historical importance, such as the RMS Queen Elizabethwhich played a vital role as a troop carrier during the second world war and which was instantly recognisable as Cunard's premier linerhave been lost to the nation in the past. We are in danger of losing vehicles and vessels of similar historical and cultural importance if no action is taken.
	A prime example of that is the SV City of Adelaide. Built in 1864, she is the last remaining example of a composite-built passenger sailing ship. Although she is located at the Scottish maritime museum, the BBC has reported that her restoration will be abandoned and that she will be broken up and scrapped. Similarly, I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill), who I am delighted to see in his place today, that steamrollers are gradually disappearing. He tells me that owners find that, if they convert them to showmen's road locomotives by replacing the rollers with wheels, they can double their value. I am never adverse to a bit commerce, but it would be a great shame if there were no way for us to ensure that some examples are preserved for posterity in their original state.
	I am sure that hon. Members could think of many other examples, but I am anxious not to delay the House further as there is some very important business that Opposition Members want to discuss. In a nutshell, the aim of the Bill is to try to prevent any further loss of historic and culturally significant vehicles. Too many have been lost for good. It is time for us to take good care of our vehicular culture, just as we do of our architectural heritage. We owe that to future generations.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Randall, Kelvin Hopkins, Mrs. Janet Dean, John Thurso, Mr. Greg Knight, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. Robert Goodwill, Michael Fabricant, Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Julian Brazier and Mr. Greg Hands.

Protection of Listed Vehicles

Mr. John Randall accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of a scheme to promote the maintenance and preservation of certain vehicles of cultural value; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed [Bill 44].

Opposition Day

Community Maternity Services

Madam Deputy Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and that he has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
	That this House supports the provision of high quality maternity services designed around the needs and wishes of expectant mothers and reconciling choice, access and safety; values the hard work of health professionals working in maternity care; endorses the need for every woman to be supported by the same midwife throughout her pregnancy; is deeply concerned at the closure or prospective closure of birth centres and maternity units and the consequent impact upon choice and access to services; regrets that the impacts of financial deficits and the Working Time Directive are forcing closures; welcomes and congratulates the cross-party opposition to such closures; and calls on the Government to respond positively to the demands for a national debate about the future configuration of maternity services.
	Thirteen years ago, in a report entitled Changing Childbirth, the previous Conservative Government set out principles for the improvement of maternity care. They stated that the woman must be the focus of maternity care, that she should be able to exercise control over her care, that maternity services should be readily accessible, that they should be planned with the involvement of women, and that resources must be used efficiently.
	Since then, Ministers have added to those principles. At the time of the last general election, the Labour manifesto stated:
	We want every woman to be supported by the same midwife throughout her pregnancy.
	Subsequently, a date of 2009 was set for the achievement of that commitment.
	The Opposition motion effectively reiterates the commitments that I have set out, which I think are shared by hon. Members of all parties. They are based on the following principles: that, wherever possible, childbirth should be normal and governed by the exercise of choice by the mother and her partner; that the services that provide maternity care must be accessible, with continuity of care wherever that is possible; and that that maternity care must be safe and effective.
	However, good intentions are not enough. We have to deliver. The motion recognises the NHS staff involved in that deliverythe midwives, maternity assistants, obstetricians, neonatologists and othersand thanks them for their hard work, the support that they give to mothers and the quality of service that they provide. But they knowas do wethat there is a long way to go. This week, the Royal College of Midwives expressed its concern about maternity services when it said:
	Maternity services are being pared back...unless midwifery services are expanded there is no hope of these manifesto commitments being achieved.
	The RCM this week published a survey of heads of midwifery that paints a very worrying picture. It found that two thirds of midwifery units are understaffed, that qualified midwifery posts are being left unfilled or replaced by maternity care assistants, and that training budgets are being cut.
	The Government have responded to that with complacency. They say that maternal and infant mortality rates are continuing to fall, and that is trueto the continuing credit of those who work in our maternity services. The Government say that that demonstrates the underlying safety of care, but mortality rates are not a sufficient measure of outcomes for the vast majority of mothers. Achieving a reduction in mortality rates is not the same as achieving quality.

Kitty Ussher: The hon. Gentleman said that outcomes had improved in terms of mortality rates, and of course that is due in part to the dedication displayed by staff. However, does he agree that that is also due to increased funding? Why did his party oppose that increase?

Andrew Lansley: The long-term reductions in maternal and infant mortality rates are due to more than increased funding. There is a long-term trend across the range of mortality rates, and the Prime Minister said as much earlier today when he talked about cancer mortality rates. The matter is much more complex: it involves funding, the organisation and quality of the care that is provided, the technology that is applied and the skills of the staff. I do not accept that the problem is simply one of resources.
	However, resourcesthat is, inputsmatter, as do outputs. The availability of midwives is an important factor. The Government amendment says that there are 2,400 more midwives than there were in 1997. That is on a head-count basis, but a calculation based on full-time equivalent staff shows that there are only 896 more midwives than there were in 1997. Full-time midwives now work 37.5 hours as opposed to 40 hours, which means that there are fewer midwife hours available now than was the case in 1997.
	Moreover, the number of midwives is significantly smaller in relation to the number of live births. To begin with, the increase in the number of midwives under this Government was in the context of a falling birth rate nationally, but what has happened in the past five years? In that time, the number of live births in England has risen from 563,644 in 2001 to 613,028 in 2005. That is a 9 per cent. increase, so it is little wonder that midwives are hard pressed.
	Has the number of midwives risen or fallen in the past year? The answer is that 36 fewer midwives are employed in the NHS, according to the most recent work force census.

Stephen Pound: rose

David Taylor: rose

Andrew Lansley: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), and then to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound).

David Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but is he not distorting the statistics to a certain extent? It is true that the live birth figures have risen since 2001, but they are subject to cyclical trends and remain roughly what they were in 1996. The hon. Gentleman is right that the number of live births oscillates around a slightly rising trend, but he exaggerates the position.

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry but I do not accept that at all. If the hon. Gentleman reads the record, he will find that I said that there was a falling birth rate when the Government took office, but that it has risen substantially sincea 9 per cent. increase.
	Did we not see in the past couple of weeks just how goodor I should say how badGovernment work force planning is? The departmental internal documents showed how poor it had been. The equivalent documents produced in 2004 were junked within two years, before most of their predictions ever came to pass. The Government are not enabling the service to match the number of midwives to the task in hand. Increasing the supply of midwives is absolutely central to delivering the objectives on which we all agreefor example, one-to-one care and continuity of care from midwives to mothers and the availability of midwives to enable women to exercise choice and have either home births or named midwife-led care. The supply of midwives is instrumental if those options are to be available.

Stephen Pound: No one would disagree with the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made. No one would disagree with him in respect of valuing the work of midwives and paying tribute to them. No one would disagree with the words in the motion to the effect that the House
	values the hard work of health professionals.
	However, it is one thing to value that work, but quite another to show admiration and respect for it by providing the highest ever rate of increase in resources in the history of the NHS. The one thing that has increased massively since 1997 is the rate of salary paid to midwives and other health professionals. Surely, the hon. Gentleman cannot argue with that.

Andrew Lansley: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that his point would have been a lot stronger before the publication of the internal Department of Health document two weeks ago, which made it clear that the Department was planning how to reduce the real-terms wages of NHS professionals on account of the embarrassment of financial deficits into which it has plunged the NHS. So I will not take the hon. Gentleman's point.
	Today's debate provides an opportunity not only to reiterate our commitment to the quality of care that we want to achieve, but to call on the Government to stop and think about what is happening to maternity services across the country at the moment. Let me take the House back to 8 December, shortly before the recess. On that day, two regional announcements were made affecting the Greater Manchester area and the east of Englandthat highlighted the serious consequences of the closure of maternity units across the country. On that one day, nine maternity units were identified for possible closure as a consequence of reconfigurations.
	We undertook our own consultation to find out what people on the front line of the NHS feel about the future configuration of maternity servicessomething that the Government need to do and that the motion calls on them to do. The national picture shows that while we talk about and value birth centres and midwife-led units, 19 of them are at risk of closure. While we talk about accessible services, a number of smaller consultant-led maternity unitsby our reckoning, 24 of them across the countryare at risk of closure. As I said, nine were identified in one day.

Andrew Gwynne: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Greater Manchester reconfiguration, but is he seriously saying that, setting aside which hospitals are identified in it, there is no need for a change to services there? That is absolutely crazy.

Andrew Lansley: I shall come on to say what I think about the Greater Manchester consultation in a few moments.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. May I tell him that it is not just Greater Manchester or the east of England trusts that face drastic cuts and closures, because the East Sussex trust is faced with the closure of the maternity unit in either Eastbourne or Hastings. My constituents may face a journey of up to 50 minutes to get to a maternity unit. In that case, a poorly resourced midwife service or home births may become not just an option, but a necessity.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend anticipates a general point that I wanted to make, so I shall make it now in response to him. Changes in the configuration of maternity services are occurring across the country, and they are driven by financial deficits, as in the case of East Sussex, or by the working time directive and staff shortages, as is predominantly the case in Greater Manchester. Those changes are not justified by evidence about clinical safety, yet we should be concerned primarily about quality and safety.

Several hon. Members: rose

Andrew Lansley: I will give way again in a few moments.
	As for Eastbourne and HastingsLabour Members may recall the same thing in respect of Calderdale and Huddersfieldwe are presented with the question whether maternity units with fewer than 3,000 live births can be maintained in this country any more. My contention is that we should retain such units, because we need to maintain access and extend to women the sort of choices that we want them to have, but NHS organisations across the country are planning to shut them down. They are doing so because of deficits and the working time directive and not because of issues of clinical safety.

Several hon. Members: rose

Andrew Lansley: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps).

Grant Shapps: Has my hon. Friend taken into consideration one widespread issue? At my local hospital, the Queen Elizabeth II in Welwyn Garden City, the maternity unit is under threat, yet the review into the closure that is about to take place does not take into account the fact that over the next 15 years its catchment area is due for a population increase of 70,000.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I understand that and I will move on to deal with the East of England trust later.

Several hon. Members: rose

Andrew Lansley: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), as I have referred to her area.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the issue of the Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS trust. He made a point about the number of births required in order to maintain standards of safety, but may I tell him that it is obstetricians who say that at least 5,000 births are necessary for viable units and it is politicians like him and me who want to maintain services as close to home as possible. Midwife-led units may be the right answer when assessments of patients' needs have been made. It would then be possible to say that fewer births were necessary to maintain services in a particular area. That could be a way of maintaining services closer to home. We need to find a compromise so that

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made her point.

Andrew Lansley: I understand the hon. Lady's point, but I do not know what world she lives in when she says that maternity units need 5,000 live births in order to be viable.  [Interruption.] Has the hon. Lady ever talked to people working in France or Germany? If we go to Germany [Interruption.] If Labour Members would listen, they might learn something. In Germany, the largest maternity unit is the Humboldt in Berlin with just more than 3,000 live births and the largest maternity unit at Lille in France has 4,000 live births. Let me tell the hon. Lady why that is the case. It is because those countries have put far more effort into the identification and management of low-risk births in the community and in smaller units so that the number of births concentrated in specialist centres can be kept down. That is not what is happening in this country at the moment.

Several hon. Members: rose

Andrew Lansley: I want to make some progress, as many Members want to speak and I have a lot to say about Manchester before giving way again.
	The hon. Member for Colne Valley made a point about midwife-led units and I agree that it is perfectly possible for them to be one of the best ways of providing services and that it may be appropriate for them to replace existing consultant-led units in some cases. However, midwife-led units are being shut down across the country, not opened on the required scale. Midwives are not taking responsibility for those services.
	As far as Calderdale and Huddersfield was concerned, the independent reconfiguration panel reached the conclusion that, because of the working time directive, it was unable to staff paediatric services, so it accepted the loss of maternity services at the Huddersfield royal infirmary. Let us consider the position in Manchester. The consultation document, Making It Better, Making It Real was presumably supplied by the department for ironic titles within the Department of Health [Interruption.] I hear the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), saying, from a sedentary position, that it is all local. I suspect we will hear a lot from him about how this is not his responsibility. Here he is, the Minister with responsibility for maternity services, who says that everything that has happened in Manchester over the past two years is absolutely nothing to do with the Government.
	The local primary care trust says in the consultation document:
	There is evidence that sick children, young people and babies do better in larger units than in smaller units.
	Reference is made to a study undertaken in southern California in 1991, which demonstrated that low-weight babies born where there was no regional neonatal intensive care unit did not do well. We all know that, but that does not support the general proposition that babies do better in larger units. There is no evidence for that. The Government have told us that there is no evidence for that: last year, they published a call for evidence and research, which we now know is to be undertaken by the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, which will not report until 2009. The Government's call for tenders states that
	there are concerns about the lack of evidence of this shift in service provision on the outcomes for both mother and child
	and that what is required is that
	empirical research is urgently undertaken to evaluate the outcomes and costs of home births and all types of midwife-led birth centres.
	Ministers do not know what the outcomes are and they do not believe that there is any evidence for the proposition that births in larger units are safer than births in smaller ones.
	In those circumstances, how can it be that on 8 December, the primary care trust in Manchester published a press release that stated that it had decidednot that it was thinking or consulting further, but that the trust had decidedthat five units in Manchester were to close? At the time, I was astonished that the Labour party chairmanI told the right hon. Lady that I might refer to her, but she has chosen not to be hereand the Under-Secretary said, Ah, well, this is a consultationnothing has been decided, when the PCT had issued a press release saying that it had decided that the units were to close. The Under-Secretary's local maternity unit, at Fairfield hospital, is to close, as are maternity units in Pendlebury, Trafford, Macclesfield and Rochdale. The Under-Secretary argues about the geography, but says that he accepts the case for change. How can he accept the case for change when there is no evidence to support the proposition? The Making It Better, Making It Real document even states, on page 18,
	The birth rate nationally is falling so there will be fewer children and young people in the future.
	That is the basis on which the decisions were made, but that statement is not true.
	What actually underlies the Greater Manchester strategic health authority's decisions? To quote page 18 of the document again,
	Staffing pressures on the 13 units providing in-patient care are getting worse. Already children's wards and maternity units have to close on occasions because there are not enough staff to cover them safely. We will not be able to staff all these units by 2009 when the European Working Time Directive becomes law and doctors are not allowed to work the hours they currently work.
	That is what is behind the events in Manchesterthe working time directive, not quality and safety. In April 2004, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who was a Health Minister at that time, said that the UK would have to comply with the working time directive but that the Government would not allow it to impact on local services. But it is having an impact on local services. The Under-Secretary cannot get away with saying that the changes are the result of local decisions; they are driven by national policies and the failure to reform the working time directive.

David Chaytor: Is the hon. Gentleman's position that the existing number of maternity units and neonatal units in Greater Manchester should continue indefinitely?

Andrew Lansley: No, because I do not contend that what ought to happen in Greater Manchester is my decision to make. However, I do contend that the Members of Parliament who represent Greater Manchester and the population of that area are ill served by a Government who imposed the working time directive that has forced the changes and by a local NHS bureaucracy that is so transparently unaccountable and unprofessional in carrying out its job.

Several hon. Members: rose

Andrew Lansley: I will not give way, because I wish to make progress.
	The Labour party chairman can do one of two things: either she can represent her constituents and say that the consultation is neither evidence based nor justified, or she can leave the Government and argue that the Government's implementation of the working time directive and imposition of certain policies is having a detrimental impact on her constituents and is clearly unjustified at national levelbut she cannot do both. She cannot represent her constituents in one way and then, at national level, support a Government who are working in precisely the opposite direction.

Several hon. Members: rose

Andrew Lansley: I will not give way now. I want to turn my attention to the east of England.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said that he is not prepared to give way at this point.

Andrew Lansley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members will thank me later for not giving way now, because they will have a chance to make their own speeches.
	I have one more point to make before I leave the subject of the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears)I wonder where she is. Today, she has received a letter from a former chief executive of the Salford and Trafford health authority, in which he says:
	We in Salford are now in a position where, instead of having a local hospital with a full range of secondary hospital services for our people, we face under your government the loss of a significant element of local health care, with probable further consequences for hospital services here in Salford. Your unprincipled intervention in 1998 helped to bring about the unfortunate situation in which we now find ourselves.
	He is referring to the loss of paediatric services from the Hope hospital in 1998. There is a lesson there for Labour Members: the loss of paediatric services leads to the loss of maternity services. Hon. Members representing Huddersfieldnone is presentknow that. That is what is happening in Manchester and elsewhere.
	The position in the east of England is astonishing. A document has been released stating that units dealing with fewer than 3,000 live births a year are not supportable. As a consequence Hinchingbrooke hospital, which covers part of my constituency, the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King's Lynn, the James Paget hospital and West Suffolk hospital may all lose services. In essence, the document states that a maternity unit cannot be maintained with less than 40 hours a week consultant cover on the labour wards, which now requires no fewer than six consultants. It is the working time directive problem all over again. It is astonishing that six obstetric consultants are required to maintain 40 hours a week consultant cover on labour wards. That is not true and it should not be the basis on which the strategic health authority makes its judgments.
	The East of England strategic health authority has the effrontery to say that the lack of consultant cover on the labour wards caused the problems at Northwick Park hospital and that that is the reason why small maternity units have to be closed. When the chief executive of the East of England strategic health authority came here in December, I asked him how many live births there were at Northwick Park hospital in the period after 2002 when 10 tragic maternal deaths occurred. He did not know. The answer is 5,000. What is important is that the unit is well run, that the consultants are on the labour ward and work as a team with the midwives, and that the unit does not have to deal with an unsustainable number of births. Northwick Park hospital was affected by, among other things, the fact that the Central Middlesex hospital had shut and births were transferred to Northwick Park. What will happen in the east of England if the Hinchingbrooke unit or the West Suffolk hospital unit is shut and all the births are sent to Peterborough and Cambridge, or if the facilities at the Queen Elizabeth hospital are closed and patients are sent to the Norfolk and Norwich hospital? The consultant-led maternity units will be subjected to unsustainable pressures, resulting in all the problems that were seen at Northwick Park, yet the East of England strategic health authority is trying to use lack of consultant cover as the reason for shutting maternity units down. I know why the strategic health authority is doing what it is doing: there is a 240 million deficit and budgets must be cut. The authority believes that economies of scale are automatic, but in practice they are not.
	There is not any evidence. That is the point that I am trying to make to the Government. That is the point in the motion. The motion is not an aggressive attempt to expose the Government's failures; it is an attempt to get the Government to ensure that the NHS across the country takes time to think. The Government have started a research programme, to be completed in 2009, to discover the evidence on the scale of maternity units that are safe and on outcomes in different types of maternity setting. How can we secure the number of midwives that we need to meet the Government's commitment to achieving one-to-one care by 2009? All those things are necessary and there should be a timetable through to 2009, but there is none. What is happening in Manchester, the east of England, Redditch and other places is that financial deficits and the pressures of the European working time directive are causing maternity units to be shut down.
	Restrictions are being put on the choice, access and opportunities that mothers should have to receive the maternity service that is in their best interests. Today, in our motion, we call on the Government to stop and thinknot to stop change everywhere but to stop and thinkand then to proceed on the basis of the evidence, not of the financial pressures. I urge the House to support our motion.

Patricia Hewitt: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	welcomes the extra investment in NHS maternity services under this Government; further welcomes the endorsement by the Royal College of Midwives of the ambitious vision for maternity services; notes that this investment has funded 2,400 more midwives than in 1997 and supported a 44 per cent. increase in students entering the midwifery profession, and that the latest surveys show that 8 out of 10 women say they are satisfied with their maternity care; recognises the preparatory work underway to deliver the Government's manifesto commitment that by 2009 all women will have the choice over where and how they have their baby and what pain relief to use, and that every woman will be supported by the same midwife throughout her pregnancy, with this support linked to other services provided in children's centres; supports the focus of services to tackle inequalities; and recognises that maternity services will need to continue to change in order to deliver this commitment and to ensure that the NHS provides the safest and most effective maternity care for babies, parents and families and the best possible value for money for taxpayers..
	I recently had the opportunity to attend the annual awards ceremony of the Royal College of Midwives, where I was able to meet many of the midwives who provide such outstanding care to women, their partners and babies all around the country: professionals such as Jackie Christer and George Brook at Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust, who have led the creation of midwife and nurse-led neonatal care. Their team is providing round-the-clock cover to the special care baby unit, the delivery suite and post-natal wards.
	As I like, when possible, to find a point of agreement with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), I note that at the Alnwick midwife-led centre in the Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust, a small midwife and nurse-led unit is providing superb quality care to mothers and their babies, with fewer than 200 births a year. I want to return to that point a little later, but it serves to illustrate the fact that depending on the way in which the local NHS chooses to organise care, and the investment it makes in the training and support of its staff, it is quite possible for a small midwife-led unit to provide high quality, safe care to mothersin that case, in an isolated, rural area.

Gregory Barker: Research from southern California, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) referred in his speech, has been cited by the PCT and the hospital trust as a reason for closing one of the maternity units at Eastbourne or Hastings. Does the Secretary of State accept that that research from the early 1990s is valid for regular, UK maternity closures of, for example, of units handling 2,000 deliveries?

Patricia Hewitt: I prefer to take my advice about consultant cover for hospital births from theBritishRoyal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I shall have a little more to say about that in a moment when I turn in more detail to the issue of clinical standards.
	Like most Members on both sides of the House, I still remember the midwives and the consultant obstetrician who helped my husband and me with our two children. That was about 20 years ago, but millions of families around the country have every reason to be grateful to NHS staff for the superb quality of care they give at a critical point in people's lives.
	All of us should be proud of NHS maternity services. Women are generally happy with them; according to my Department's latest maternity survey, eight in 10 women tell us that they are happy with the care they received during birth. That is down to the superb hard work and dedication of thousands of NHS midwives and other clinicians and professionals. It is down to the increased investmentmore than 1.5 billion a yearthat we are making in NHS maternity services. It is down to the fact that the number of midwives has increased by about 2,500 over the past 10 years, which is of course reflected in the fact that childbirth is probably safer now, for both mothers and their babies, than at any time in the past.
	As many of us know, in some parts of the country services are not only good, not only safe, but outstanding: they match the best in the world.

Eric Martlew: Unlike Opposition Members, I have a long memory. I was a member of a health authority for many years. During that time, an independent report about my constituency of Carlisle stated that babies were dying because there was a split site; the consultants were on one site and the maternity unit was 2 miles away across a crowded city. In 18 years, the Conservative Government did nothing to assist us, yet within three years of a Labour Government it was put right. We have a brand new hospital. The maternity unit was moved to the same site as the consultants and we now have an excellent service. Those people across the road should remember what it was like when they were in charge of the NHS.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend speaks with great experience in the matter. He is absolutely right and has given us a vivid illustration of how in many parts of the country maternity services need to change to provide even better and even safer care for mothers and their babies.

David Gauke: The Secretary of State says that maternity services need to change, and that in many places there is satisfaction with the quality of maternity services. What would she say to expectant mothers in my constituency whose antenatal classes, provided by West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, have been withdrawn with little notice? First-time mothers in particular feel nervous about giving birth, for understandable reasons, and they were relying on those classes to provide them with the education and preparation that is so useful, yet it has been withdrawn. The reason? Financial deficits.

Patricia Hewitt: I should be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the details of that point but, as he knows, there are real financial difficulties in some parts of the country, including his. In a minority of places, there has been overspending at the expense of NHS patients and staff in other parts of the country. That is simply not fair. It is particularly unacceptable at a time when more money is going into the NHS than ever before and, in case the hon. Gentleman has forgotten, his party voted against that extra investment. The local NHS in his area needs to make sure that it gets the best value for the increased money we are putting in, and that it delivers, within that budget, the best possible services.

Several hon. Members: rose

Patricia Hewitt: I want to make some more progress.
	The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and I agree that we need to do more. In parts of the country, there are more births, more births to older women, more complex births, more assisted conceptions and more babies born prematurelythanks to the advances in medical technology more premature babies and babies with profound disabilities survive. That is a great advance for human progress, but all those changes in society and in medicine mean that maternity services need to change, too.
	As we stressed in our national service framework, we know well that giving birth does not need medical intervention for a high proportion of women. Many of those women would much rather give birth at home or in a community setting, supported by a midwife.

Brian Iddon: The shadow Health Secretary tried to depict the Manchester reconfiguration as the basis for cuts in provision. Is my right hon. Friend aware that when Manchester reconfigures its services significantly more money will be spent on maternity and children's services and there will be a significant emphasis on services to mothers and babies and young children in their homes rather than in a hospital setting?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall talk about Manchester in a little more detail in a moment.
	First, I want to make the point that only about 3 per cent. of women have their babies at home and only about 4 per cent. in community facilities such as a midwife-led birthing centre, although in some parts of the country, such as Torbay, where I had the opportunity to meet the midwifery team last year, maternity services have been organised differently. More women are being supported so that they have a real choice about where to have their babies, and more than 10 per cent. already give birth at home.

Simon Burns: On the Secretary of State's response to her hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), if everything is so fine why is the Minister without Portfolio, her right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), campaigning and demonstrating against the plans?

Patricia Hewitt: Let me turn to the issue of

Simon Burns: Answer the question.

Patricia Hewitt: Let me turn to the reorganisation of services in Greater Manchester, which has been under consideration for many, many years and has been subject to more than two and a half years of formal consultation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) indicated, it will involve increased investment in maternity services in Greater Manchester.

Paul Rowen: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Patricia Hewitt: No, I will not give way at the moment. The reorganisation has nothing whatever to do with the financial difficulties that recently emerged, or with the overspending in a minority of NHS organisations over the past year. The reorganisation of services has been proposed and led by clinicians. It is disgraceful that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire spent so much of his speech attacking and denigrating outstanding NHS clinicians in Greater Manchesterclinicians such as Dr. Anthony Emmerson, consultant neonatologist, who says that across the review area, which is Greater Manchester,
	There are too many hospitals each seeing too few patients
	so the issue is not the working time directive
	to maintain the skills and expertise of those who provide obstetric or paediatric care.

Several hon. Members: rose

Patricia Hewitt: I will make progress before I give way again. Let me continue to quote a professional on the issue of the Manchester reconfiguration:
	Doctors treating babies so small that they fit into the palm of the hand can do so with far more confidence and skill if they see those cases every week
	than if they see such babies on only a handful of occasions a year. Changes to intensive care will save the lives of approximately 20 babies every year. It is the assessment of the clinicians and the NHS professionals who are leading that reconfiguration that if services are changed in the way that they propose, between 20 and 30 babies a year will live, who previously would have died.

Andrew Gwynne: I was a premature babyI was born at St. Mary's hospital in Manchester some 32 years agoso I support what the Secretary of State says. Is not the good news story of the reconfiguration the fact that central Manchester will have a state-of-the-art facility for the whole county of Greater Manchester, which we do not have at present?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but let me stress that a final decision on the reorganisation of services has not yet been made.

Several hon. Members: rose

Patricia Hewitt: I will not give way, because I want to respond to the points already made, particularly about the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears). It is absurd for Opposition Members to attack my right hon. Friend for making representations about NHS changes in her constituency, and yet to spend months, as they did last year, accusing us of gerrymandering NHS changes to protect Labour constituencies. They simply cannot have it both ways. Opposition Members seem to be saying that a Member of the House should not make representations to his or her local primary care trust and strategic health authority, or put forward the case for nine, rather than eight, specialist maternity centres. Are they really claimingthis is what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire saysthat the people of one constituency should have less representation in the House of Commons simply because their Member of Parliament sits on the Front Bench? That would be completely unacceptable. I do not know [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the Secretary of State.

Patricia Hewitt: I do not know whether that is the policy that the Opposition propose to adopt, should they ever form a Government again, but it would be entirely wrong to do so.

Rob Marris: I want to take the Secretary of State back slightly. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who opened the debate for the Opposition, said that the working time directive was driving matters. Clearly that is not the casethe issue is improving the quality of servicebut does my right hon. Friend, particularly as a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, share my dismay that the Conservatives, who broke European Union law by not implementing the working time directive are, 10 years later, apparently still against it? It is a safety measure for staff.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition negotiated the working time directive when they were in governmentand a pretty poor job they made of it, too. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has explained on many occasions, they ignored the advice that they were given at the time and failed to negotiate the directive effectively, and thus opened the way to judgments in the European Court that have made life genuinely difficult for parts of the national health service.

Andrew Lansley: That is precisely the point: we had a new deal for junior doctors, which would have reduced their hours, and it would have been consistent with the working time directive, but the SiMAP and Jaeger judgments completely changed all that. They made it impossible for doctors to be asleep when on call in hospital, and for that time not to be treated as working time. Back in 2004, the Secretary of State's predecessor said that that would all be changed, but that has not happened. That is what is driving the proposals.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong to say that the proposals are driven by the SiMAP and Jaeger judgment, although it is causing additional problems and we disagree with it, as do most other European Union countries. We have spent several years reaching an agreement within the European Union to change the SiMAP and Jaeger judgments, but unfortunately we have not been able to reach agreement with some of our European colleagues about the individual opt-out.

John Baron: Just do it!

Patricia Hewitt: Opposition Members keep saying, Just do it, but they may not have noticed, given their extraordinary hostility to the European Union, that an individual country cannot simply overturn the judgment of the European Court on such matters. We will therefore continue to make services safer, and to bring down doctors' working hours. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) said, that is better for doctors and safer for the patients for whom they care. As we bring working hours down, initially to 56 hours from 2009 onwards, and then to 48 hours, there will be an impact on maternity services. Of course, the NHS has to take that issue into account, but working hours are not the only factor, as the Manchester clinician whom I quoted made crystal clear.
	I want to make it crystal clear that when the final decision is made in Greater Manchester on the reconfiguration of services, it will be made on clinical grounds, and on the basis of what is best for patientsfor women and their babies. It will not be made on political grounds, either there or elsewhere.

Daniel Kawczynski: There has been a lot of discussion about Manchester and other cities, but does the Secretary of State agree that some of the reconfigurations will have a far more significant impact on rural areas, such as Shropshire? The hospital trust in my area covers more than 1,300 square miles, and it deals with mothers from mid-Wales, too. There is a significant impact on the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, because 16 beds are being cut in maternity.

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that such decisions need to be made locally, in light of local circumstances, because what is right in a large city will not be right in a rural area; different issues will need to be taken into account. That is why, wherever possible, such decisions should be made locally.

Several hon. Members: rose

Patricia Hewitt: I will not give way; I will make some more progress. Earlier, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire referred to the reorganisation in Calderdale and Huddersfield. In that case, there was consensus across the local NHS that two consultant-led units should be replaced by one consultant-led unit and one midwife-led unit. There was considerable consternation among local people, particularly in Huddersfield, about whether the midwife-led unit proposed for the area would provide good quality, safe care. That issue was referred to me by the overview and scrutiny committee, which plays a critical part in the statutory consultation that we have insisted should take place locally when there is to be any substantial change in services.
	The panel made it absolutely clear that the standards to which local clinicians worked were set by the royal colleges themselves, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which says that dedicated consultant cover should be available for a minimum of 40 hours during the working week. It wants that to be increasedrightly, in my viewto 60 hours by the end of 2008.

Paul Rowen: Much has been made of the situation in Manchester, but the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust provides alternative arrangements, as consultants work across four hospitals to provide the necessary cover. The Government's decision to concentrate everything in one or two large facilities need not always apply, and alternative arrangements would prevent Bury and Rochdale from losing maternity and obstetric services.

Patricia Hewitt: That is a matter for local decision making; local clinicians should take the lead on it.

Kali Mountford: Although the perception was that it was a done deal, it is important to acknowledge that there are opportunities to make even more improvements in assessments, and to provide new transport arrangements, community services and maternity services, as well as initiatives to tackle teenage pregnancies and help young mothers. Now that the decision has been made, more can be done with the local hospital to provide better services for local people. It is not a done deal.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The independent review panel did an admirable job when it went to Calderdale and Huddersfield, as it listened to local people, clinicians and other professional staff. It thought that the decision to centralise services in one consultant-led unit was right, but it made it clear that the local NHS needed to do more to provide community-based maternity support, particularly for women in disadvantaged areas of my hon. Friend's constituency. It pointed to the need, too, for closer working between the NHS and the local council to ensure good transport facilities. That is exactly the kind of decision that needs to be taken locally, and not dictated by the Department of Health or a one-size-fits-all approach, if services are to be tailored to the needs of particular areas.

Jeremy Hunt: What would the Secretary of State say to one of my constituents, who is desperately worried about the possible closure of Royal Surrey county hospital's maternity unit? Her child was born within five minutes of her arrival in the unit. The baby was several weeks premature, and needed immediate access to life-saving equipment. If the unit had not been in operation, the child would have been born in an ambulance, with potentially life-threatening consequences.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman underlines the need to ensure that services are properly organised so that they are safe, particularly for women who are at high risk of a difficult labour. That should be the case not just for women who live within five minutes of that hospital but for women across the region, and it is exactly the kind of issue that will be taken into account when proposals on that part of the country are considered in the consultation.

Several hon. Members: rose

Patricia Hewitt: I am conscious of the number of Members who wish to contribute to our debate, and I wish to make progress.
	I said earlier that we need to do considerably more. In our 2005 manifesto, we pledged to give women more choice by 2009 about where and how they have their babies, and about which pain relief to use. We want women to be supported by the same midwife throughout their pregnancy. We must do far more to address the deep-seated inequalities that persist both in maternity services and in the outcomes for women and their children. Despite the fact that maternal and neonatal deaths have fallen for several decades, there are still deep inequalities, as women from highly disadvantaged groups are up to 20 times more likely to die in childbirth. We need more services, particularly antenatal services, in local communities to support women during pregnancy and to allow them to choose where they will give birth. We therefore created Sure Start programmes in the most disadvantaged communities to give women, their partners and their babies the most effective support. I have seen that initiative working superbly in the disadvantaged communities in my constituency. In Portsmouth, the maternity outreach programme is caring for the most vulnerable women in the city, including pregnant teenagers. We now have 1,000 Sure Start children's centres, and we are working to create a centre in every community. Such investment in public services would be put at risk by Tory cuts.

David Taylor: The Secretary of State has rightly flagged up the successes of our nine-and-a-half years in power, as well as the need for more qualified midwives in the years to come. Early last year, I presented a petition of 2,947 signatures that was co-ordinated by a student midwife in North-West Leicestershire who wished to highlight the very high attrition rate on midwifery training courses. Of every 10 students who begin a course, two do not complete it. Of the remaining eight who graduate, only five find jobs. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that attrition and employment rates can be tackled so that there will be enough qualified midwives in the years to come to deal with the trends that she identified?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. As I said, there are about 2,500 more midwives employed in the NHS than in 1997. Vacancy rates in most parts of the country are low, although in London some trusts find it difficult to recruit and retain midwives. There are more midwives in training than there have ever been, with an increase of about a third since 1997. As my hon. Friend said, however, many of those midwives have experienced difficulties finding a job this year, and we are working closely with hospital trusts to ensure that everything possible is done to help midwives secure employment.
	That issue emphasises the need for the NHS to continue to change to secure even better value for money. A recent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research confirmed that if every hospital did what the best are already doing, and ensured patients went home as soon as they were medically ready to do so, the NHS would save nearly 1 billion a year. That is more than enough not only to deal with last year's overspending but to continue to improve maternity services and pay for new drugs and improvements that are needed.

Michael Penning: The Secretary of State has been generous in accepting interventions. She knows that in south-west Hertfordshire, the trust is in dire financial straits and, worryingly for the community, devastating cuts have been proposed. The debate on midwife-led units was conducted four or five years ago, when a huge investment was made in a state-of-the-art, award-winning birthing unit that was opened under the Government. It has now closed, because there is no money to pay the midwives. If there is a surplus of midwives elsewhere in the country, will she enable them to work in Hertfordshire and guarantee that it will reopen?

Patricia Hewitt: I have discussed that issue with the hon. Gentleman on several occasions, and he knows that the NHS in Hertfordshire has overspent for many years, despite record increasesfar greater than under his partyin its budgets. It needs to reorganise its services to use those record budgets far more efficiently. By doing so, particularly by reorganising its acute services, it will release the money that it needs to continue to improve maternity services.

David Kidney: My right hon. Friend has discussed disadvantage. Does she agree that disadvantage is reflected in different breastfeeding rates around the country? May I thank her for the support that she and her Department have given over the past few months to the breastfeeding manifesto, which I drew up with a wide group of interested parties? I urge her to continue to support that manifesto so that we can achieve internationally comparable standards of best practice.

Patricia Hewitt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his leadership on the breastfeeding manifesto, which deals with an extremely important issue. We will provide both antenatal and postnatal support in the children's centres that we are building in every community, consolidating the success of Sure Start children's centres and helping all women to give their children the best start in life.
	The Royal College of Midwives congratulated the Government on their ambitious vision for safe maternity services of the highest quality that give women in every part of the country more choice. But it is an ambitious vision, and we know very well that much more needs to be done to achieve it. That is why we are working closely with the Royal College of Midwives, with others and with the NHS around the country on the changes that will be needed. We will publish further plans on that shortly.
	We will go on supporting the NHS to change maternity and other services because people's needs are changing and medicine is changing. We will go on supporting investment and making record investment in the NHS, and we will go on exposing the absurdity of a Conservative party that says it wants more money for the NHS but votes against the record investment, and which has adopted an economic policy that would mean cuts of 17 billion this year in public service funding. We will support our local clinicians and our front-line staff, unlike the Opposition, who attack staff pay rises and have said that they would overturn the recent agreement on public sector pensions.
	We know very well that maternity services in England are good. They are getting better and they need to get better still. With the vision and ambition that we have set out, I am confident that we will indeed deliver on that vision.

Norman Lamb: I welcome the debate on an issue of central importance to so many people. The issue has inevitably been brought into sharp focus by the extraordinary decision of the chairwoman of the Labour party to campaign directly against Government policy by fighting to retain maternity services in Salford. Of course, she was not the only member of the Cabinet to do that. The Home Secretary and the Chief Whip have also been indulging in double standards, campaigning to retain health services in their constituencies. Perhaps we should applaud these Labour Ministers. Perhaps they are belatedly embracing the concept of localism.

Stephen Pound: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Lamb: Just give me a few more moments. I have been speaking for about 30 seconds so far, but I would love [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Norman Lamb: I shall come back to my good friend and previous neighbour from Norman Shaw North, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound).
	Labour's hypocrisy is matched on the Conservative side. The motion rightly calls for high quality maternity services and resists the closure of birth centres and maternity units, and that comes from a party which voted against the increased investment in our health service. They cannot have it both ways. If the Tories had had their way, 35.5 billion less would have been spent on the health service since 2003. The Liberal Democrats believe that that money could have been spent much more wisely, but imagine the state that our maternity services, let alone the rest of the health service, would be in, if the Conservatives had had their way. The public need to understand that. In government, the Tories presided over chronic underfunding of the NHS.
	I acknowledge that there are many examples around the country of good practice. It is clear from the evidence that childbirth is safer than it ever has been

Stephen Pound: I apologise for intervening prematurely, but it was on the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears). There is a particular situation in respect of the Manchester configuration, especially as regards the location of the Royal Bolton, St. Mary's and Salford Hope hospitals, and my right hon. Friend was surely acting in the best interests of her constituents. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that her constituents should be disfranchised at the moment that she takes her seat at the Cabinet table? If he is saying that, he is not the man I thought I knew and admired

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Norman Lamb: The hon. Gentleman ought to calm down. He is getting very excited. His intervention needs no further response.
	The context of the debate is the desperate state of NHS finances in many parts of the country. It is particularly desperate in the east of England, my own region. It is important to debate in an objective way the best framework for maternity services, but decisions are being taken now, at least in part, because of intense pressure to clear often historic deficits. In many areas the situation is so bleak that it is inevitable that patient services, including maternity services, will suffer.
	Yesterday I raised with the Secretary of State the situation of trusts which have massive historic debts and little hope of being able to clear those deficits without severe damage to patient care. Nigel Edwards, the policy director of the NHS Confederation, has said that there are a number of trusts where
	recovery looks extremely difficult, if not impossible,
	yet the Secretary of State gave little reassurance that those trusts will be able to escape from that nightmare.
	What is happening in the parts of the country where the health economy is in serious financial trouble? The Health Committee reported before Christmas on NHS deficits. It found evidence that reconfiguration was in some cases being driven by financial crisis, rather than being the result of rational planning.

Kali Mountford: I cannot allow the debate to go much further without making it clear that in my area, Calderdale and Huddersfield, it was made clear from the outset that the reconfiguration was not based on any financial consideration whatever and that the trust is not in deficit. That may not be the case in other areasI do not speak for thembut I do not want the debate to continue on the basis that reconfiguration is the result only of financial considerations.

Norman Lamb: I acknowledge the hon. Lady's point about her own area. I will go on to speak about reconfiguration and the fact that we do not oppose it in all circumstances. The position varies around the country.
	The Health Committee found evidence that in some cases reconfiguration was being driven by financial crisis rather than rational planning. The Committee referred to Worcestershire, where all hospital births, neonatal care and the special baby care unit have been moved to a single site at the Worcester Royal hospital. Evidence from the acute trust referred specifically to the massive financial challenge that it faces, and stated that
	service reconfiguration is essential,
	but that
	the Trust Board has recognised that it will not be able to take the final steps to achieve recurrent financial balance without even more radical action
	an example of reconfiguration being driven by financial crisis.

Lembit �pik: On that point, is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, Montgomeryshire, once again financial pressures are being used as a reason for the possible closure of one of the local hospitals, Llanidloes hospital? I am sure he would agree that closing services does not save money. Often it simply shifts the cost into other silos, so it is utterly counterproductive, especially when the local community overwhelmingly opposes the closure.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes some good points.

David Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept also that in Greater Manchester, even though some aspects of the restructuring are controversial, the cost will be greater than the current cost of running the service because of the massive expansion in primary care? Is his party committed to matching our investment in primary care, and is he committing himself to funding the deficits of trusts which currently have deficits and which he is criticising?

Norman Lamb: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about Manchester. It is clearly important that the services be adequately funded. Examples from overseas, which I will discuss later, show that it does not always have to cost more for the service to provide more choice for women and high quality maternity care.

Paul Rowen: On the Greater Manchester reconfiguration, especially the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, my hon. Friend may be aware that the Government have invested considerable sums at the Rochdale infirmary 25 million seven years agoand a similar figure at Fairfield hospital, yet those units are to be closed and a brand new unit, which I am told will cost over 40 million, will have to be built in north Manchester. That is meant to satisfy a pledge made by the Prime Minister when Booth Hall was shut. It has nothing to do with planning properlyit is more about keeping past promises.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful for that intervention. We see examples all over the country of investment being overtaken by decisions to move in a different direction, thereby wasting money. Clearly, not all the money that has been invested in the health service has been spent wisely.
	We do not oppose reconfiguration per seit is sometimes necessarybut because so much of the NHS is mired in debt it is inevitable that judgments will often be driven by the requirement to clear it. These decisions should be taken locally, based on objective judgments on how to improve the serviceand with genuine local accountability, doing more than merely paying lip service to involving local communities in the sometimes tough choices that have to be made.
	In its report before Christmas, the Select Committee found that in a desperate attempt to recover financial balance soft targets are often disproportionately affected. It referred particularly to mental health services, to support for voluntary organisations and, crucially, to staff training. There is no doubt that cuts in staff training are affecting maternity services. A recent survey by the Royal College of Midwives found that trusts were cutting training budgets, with one in five reporting that entire budgets had gone and the same proportion saying that three quarters of the budget had gone.
	It is not only training budgets that are suffering. The RCM survey found that two thirds of units surveyed were under-staffed; that one in five had lost staff in the past year; that trusts were increasingly relying on maternity support workers, not qualified midwives, to fill the gaps; and that trusts are employing fewer newly qualified midwives than a year ago. Those are the midwives recruited to training programmes three years ago because of staff shortages; every one of them who does not become employed in the health service effectively costs the taxpayer 45,000 in wasted training costs, apart from the cost to the future of the student who fails to get a job. The survey also found that fewer students are starting training courses because places have been cut. As a result, there will be insufficient newly qualified midwives to replace those retiring, let alone the need to tackle the growing pressures on the service.
	Midwife numbers are down in the past year. The Government tell us that in the period of their office numbers have increased, and I accept that, but worryingly, the trend is now in the opposite direction. Significant numbers of midwife-led services have closed or are threatened with closure. The RCM highlights the fact that we have an ageing work force with increasing numbers planning to retire in the next few years.

Sandra Gidley: My hon. Friend mentions the closure of a significant number of midwife-led units; indeed, that has happened in my own area. Does he share my concern that the fact that many of the units that are closing are midwife led removes choice for women who may decide that they do not want to go to the nearby consultant-led unit, however safe and good it may be?

Norman Lamb: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. It cuts against the Government's commitment to increase choice, since if units disappear, choice self-evidently disappears as well.
	All those trends that are moving in the wrong direction are factors that affect the prospects of tackling the inequalities that the Secretary of State rightly mentioned. They are happening at a time when pressures on the service are increasing. The number of births has started to rise. In 2003-04, there were 5 per cent. more births than in the previous year. There is an increased level of intervention. Birth is an increasingly medicalised practice. Post-natal hospital stays can be longer when intervention is necessary, which inevitably places extra demands on midwives. The percentage of spontaneous births fell from 76.5 per cent. in 1980 to 66.5 per cent. in 2003-04. Meanwhile, the number of caesarean deliveries has increased from 9 per cent. in 1980 to 22.7 per cent. in 2003-04, and the trend is continuing in that direction. It is worth noting that back in the 1980s the World Health Organisation found that there were no additional health benefits associated with caesarean deliveries when they reach more than 10 to 15 per cent. of births. If that is correctI do not know whether there is any new evidence to counteract itthere are resources to saved by finding ways of reversing the trend.

David Drew: The main Opposition made great play of the lack of research evidence in this area, although investigations are being undertaken by the King's Fund as well as by the national perinatal epidemiology unit. There is an international dearth of evidence in the whole area of maternity. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to get that research, even if it takes years, so that we can get some of these questions answered?

Norman Lamb: Yesit is important to get the research so that we can make judgments on an objective basis. It is also worth considering practice elsewhere, as I will explain later.
	The other pressure that is developing is that increasing numbers of women over the age of 40 are becoming pregnant. Between 1991 and 2003, the number of women conceiving over the age of 40 almost doubled. Midwifery for those women is more demanding. More teenage pregnancies also have an impact on the service.
	Now we come to the Government's manifesto commitments. The manifesto said that by 2009
	all women will have choice over where and how they have their baby and what pain relief to use.
	It also stated:
	we want every woman to be supported by the same midwife throughout her pregnancy.
	The brutal truth is that choice, far from being enhanced, is being compromised by the cuts that we have witnessed over the past 12 months.
	I should also mention the national service framework for children, young people and maternity services, which appears to be increasingly marginalised. It was published two years ago, and yet there is still no delivery plan for implementation of its maternity standard element. The Government's ambition is worthy, but it is undermined by financial crisis, delay and a determination to drive everything from the centre. Last September, the NHS chief executive, David Nicholson, declared that there would be up to 60 reconfigurations of NHS services, determined not locally but nationally, affecting every strategic health authority in the land. He specifically identified accident and emergency, paediatrics and maternity services as areas ripe for reform.
	Let me deal briefly with the case for reconfiguring services. I accept that difficult choices sometimes have to be made. Women with high risk pregnancies must have access to the expertise necessary. Women falling into that category include those having twins, those with a past obstetric history, those with premature deliveries, those suffering high blood pressure and those with other clinical problems such as diabetes. They need the care provided in specialist units, and we will fail them if we do not ensure that they have access to them. That does not mean, however, that we should back away from giving women a real, informed choice.
	In developing maternity services we should be willing to learn lessons from other countries. Holland's maternity health statistics consistently rank among the best in the world. It has a national policyjust like the policy in the Labour manifestothat guarantees every woman a midwife from the beginning of pregnancy through the first year after birth. Thirty to 40 per cent. of births there take place in the home under the care of a midwife. That option is proven to be safe and cost effective, and women choose it. Let us compare the figure with the tiny percentage of women who have home births in this country. Other methods of doing things appear to work and be cost-effective, and the choice should be made available in a positive way to women in the UK.
	It is remarkable that, in Holland, caesarean births have been kept below 10 per cent.compared with our 23 per cent.leading to massive cost savings and a better outcome for women. That shows that we can reconfigure without necessarily imposing an additional burden on the NHS budget.
	We should learn lessons from elsewhere and be willing to confront difficult decisions to ensure the best care and to empower women. Decisions should not be driven by crisis management because of the legal obligation to clear unsustainable debt.
	Our vision is of offering genuine, informed choices to womenhome care, midwife-led services, hospital deliveryabout where and how they give birth; making decisions locally, thus involving local communities in delivering the best framework of care; and ensuring that we have the work force necessary to realise that vision.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back Benchers' speeches. In view of the time left for the debate, hon. Members may wish to restrict their contributions even further.

Barbara Keeley: As a Salford Member of Parliament, whose constituency is served by Salford royal hospitalalso known as Hope hospital locallyI know that the maternity and neonatal services that it provides are vital to the local community and that they are world class.
	The Government have already doubled investment in the NHS in the past 10 years, and that has helped hospitals such as Salford royal to achieve excellent results. Millions of pounds have been invested in our local acute services and that has led to extra doctors and nurses, shorter waiting times for operations and better cancer survival rates.
	I accept the need for the reconfiguration of paediatric, neonatal intensive care and maternity services so that they can continue to deliver the most effective care for patients. However, in the case of the reconfiguration of maternity, children's and neonatal services across Greater Manchester, I do not believe that the locally recommended option is the right decision. The outcry from my constituents and people across Salford shows that public opinion is strongly against the option that clinicians recommend.
	On 8 December 2006, the outcome of the Making it Better consultation into the future of services for women, babies and children was announced. The Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts recommended that the future configuration of services across Greater Manchester should not involve Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust retaining its maternity and neonatal services.
	It is important to note that the Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust supports the principle of fewer, larger maternity and children's units and developing three major neonatal intensive care units. I, too, support that. However, I believe that Greater Manchester would benefit more by retaining and developing the existing services at Salford royal.
	Salford already has one of only three large neonatal intensive care units in the north-west that are accredited by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. It is led by a dedicated team of neonatologists and nurses with specialist, advanced roles, and, unlike other hospitals, it has no recruitment difficulties. It takes many years to build such a successful team. It therefore makes sense to retain the hospital's excellent staff, who are such an integral part of the high quality of service that the hospital's maternity and neonatal units provide, rather than dispersing the expertise and trying to rebuild it elsewhere.
	Salford royal's unique range of specialist services enables it to support high risk maternity cases, thus benefiting approximately 120 women a year. Those services are not found in any other general hospital. Salford women would therefore have to travel elsewhere should the proposals go ahead. Similarly, Salford's neurosciences centre is the only unit that specialises in care for pregnant women. Continuing to provide neonatal services at Salford royal would be as safe and effective as providing them elsewhere, butcruciallythey would be delivered at lower cost, lower risk and with greater potential for the future.
	The option in the consultation document that involves Salford continuing to provide maternity and neonatal in-patient care is also the best value option. It can be in place in 14 months and it costs 1 million less than the other options. Choosing the cheapest and quickest option appears to be common sense as it frees up money that can be spent on other improvements to the health service.
	Furthermore, Salford already has existing plans for developing children's services. It planned to establish an observation and assessment unit to support emergency care, which would be staffed by six consultant paediatricians and specialists in paediatric anaesthesia and radiology. Plans also exist to develop paediatric day surgery and community services for children. All those plans would be enormously valuable in a community that contains some of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the country.
	It has been suggested that future neonatal units should be located only next to paediatric units. As Salford royal planned to open the new observation and assessment unit that I have just mentioned in 2008, babies born at the hospital would have access to the best neonatal and paediatric expertise. Retaining maternity services in Salford would be the safest option for Salfordians, as there would be better distribution of maternity units, with each one able to operate above the recommended minimum number of births for safe service.
	I firmly believe that health services should be situated where there is most need for them and that neonatal units need to be based where there are the highest number of low birth weight babies rather than where the biggest maternity units are. Salford has the fifth highest birth rate in Greater Manchester and the highest incidence of very low birth weight babies, so moving the unit away would deprive local people of a service that they desperately need. It is only right that those babiesand their parentshave easy access to the care that they require.
	Easy access is a vital matter, especially in Salford, which has the lowest car ownership in Greater Manchester. Travelling to the other proposed locations by public transport is not easy and, for a heavily pregnant woman or one with a small baby, it could be unpleasant and difficult. The length of the journeys would be unacceptable for some women. If the services were moved, some of my constituents simply could not access them as they should.
	The neonatal intensive care unit at Hope is groundbreaking in the research that it has carried out on tiny babies. Doctors and nurses led an international study to improve the care of very low birth weight babies. That research has been shared with the medical community and will have a bearing on the future care of very low birth weight babies throughout the world. The fact that Hope was the ideal unit to host the study, and the resulting improvements in care that will take place worldwide, prove that it is important for the unit to be able to continue its work and its research, hopefully leading to similar successes in the future.
	Hope hospital is much loved and appreciated by the people of Salford. The trust has been rated as the most successful of all trusts in the north-west by the Healthcare Commission. Attention has been given to maternity and neonatal services at Hope hospital in the past few weeks, but Salford Members of Parliament have campaigned to keep our excellent services for many months. I visited the neonatal unit at Hope hospital with the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), on 20 January last year. We saw at first hand the world class standard of care that the staff in that unit provide.
	Our local paper, the  Salford Advertiser, ran a campaign, Hands Off Hope, which attracted the support of 26,000 people. I spoke in support of retaining our services alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) at a rally on 25 March last year, organised by the  Salford Advertiser and the city council. Those local campaigns for Hope and the massive support that they attracted are a powerful indication of the strength of local feeling about retaining the maternity and neonatal services that people value so highly.

Graham Stringer: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for Salford, especially on access to services. Are not the implications that she describes for Salford exactly the same as for the other highly deprived area of north Manchester, which is served by North Manchester general hospital? If Salford royal hospital stayed open, North Manchester general hospital would probably lose its maternity unit under the plans. I emphasise that I do not accept the basis for the consultation. Would not it make sense to keep open Salford royal and North Manchester general hospitals, which are in the middle of some of the most deprived areas in the country?

Barbara Keeley: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. One of the issues that needs to be considered in the final stage of the consultation is the need to keep services as proximate as possible to the most deprived communities. As I have made clear, the need for the services in Salford is caused by the high birth rate and the high incidence of very low birth weight babies, and it makes absolute sense, given the difficulties of public transport in our conurbations, to keep these services as local as possible.
	In summary, Salford MPs have argued consistently over many months to keep the local maternity and neonatal services at Hope hospital, and we have argued this on clinical grounds. I have supported the Government's policies on the NHS and on the need to reconfigure services, but I also support the view that the best option will be to retain services at Hope, because that is the quickest and cheapest way of achieving the aims set out in the consultation, which we endorsed.
	Salford city council's community health and social care scrutiny committee has been asked to scrutinise the proposal for change made by the joint committee of PCTs locally. The decision may then be referred to the Secretary of State, who can refer the matter to the independent configuration panel. This is an example of the process working as it should when there is disagreement during a consultation. Given that I support the need to reconfigure services, I will support the decision made at the end of the process, but I believe that it is right, while the process is going on, for me as an MP and for other Salford MPs to continue to press the views of local people.

James Clappison: I shall certainly do my best to follow your injunction to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I should like to mention one particular matter that affects my constituency. Before I do that, however, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and his Front-Bench colleagues on choosing this important subject for debate today. I also want to join him in paying tribute to all the professionals involved in the maternity servicesthe doctors, nurses and midwives, including those who serve my constituents in Hertfordshire.
	My hon. Friend referred to the Royal College of Midwives' survey, which is an important piece of evidence in this context, and to the problems being experienced up and down the country. Of the 102 maternity departments questioned, 74 per cent. reported that they were facing staff shortages. It is important, from my constituents' point of view, to add that the survey also found that the problems were most acute in London and the south-east. My constituency in Hertfordshire is certainly no exception, in that it is experiencing similar problems to those found elsewhere in the south-east.
	The House has already heard about some of the other problems being experienced in Hertfordshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) mentioned the threat hanging over the hospital that serves his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) mentioned a unit that was standing unused in his constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) talked about the loss of antenatal classes at Watford general hospital. That is the subject to which I want to turn, because it affects my constituents most directly.
	It was announced just before Christmas that first-time mothersexcept those who are teenagers or who are expecting twinswill no longer receive antenatal classes. The trust put out a statement on 12 December saying:
	The Trust has agreed to a temporary suspension in antenatal parentcraft classes provided for first time mothers. Tours of the maternity unit will continue to be offered.
	The statement makes it absolutely clear that the decision is being taken on financial grounds. It goes on:
	The Trust faces difficult choices in terms of how to use its available resources to serve all patients.
	This is a trust with a substantial deficit. According to the national surveys, it is among those with the most serious deficits, and I understand that it faces a projected deficit of 100 million by 2012.
	This is part and parcel of the general crisis affecting NHS services throughout Hertfordshire. The crisis has manifested itself in a number of ways, including the apparent loss of the new hospital that was to have been built at Hatfield. The proposals for the hospital were announced just before the last general election, and it was to have provided cancer services and other services in Hertfordshire. However, the project has been undermined and will apparently no longer take place.
	We have also seen the loss of hospital beds at Potters Bar hospital, the loss of beds and services at other district hospitals, and the threat of the loss of a variety of services affecting my constituents, including mental health services and genito-urinary medicine services. The general picture is one of financial crisis in the health service throughout Hertfordshire, and it would appear that this problem is also affecting the antenatal classes and other maternity services at Watford hospital.
	Hard on the heels of the announcement about the loss of antenatal classes came another announcement. I note that it was made just before Christmas. A statement was issued to the media on 20 December by the trust, giving very short notice that, from 8 January this year, the trust intended to ask
	mothers who wish to bottle feed their babies to supply their own Ready to Feed Baby Milk or Baby Milk Powder and bottles whilst in hospital.
	In fairness to the trust, I must add that it states that this change is in line with guidance and a wish to educate mothers in the best way possible, and that it has been introduced for educational rather than financial reasons. However, against the background of the loss of the antenatal classes the week before and all the other problems affecting the health service in Hertfordshire, this change has perhaps not been greeted with as much confidence as might have been hoped by local parents and mothers-to-be. One mother-to-be, who is 11 weeks pregnant, was distinctly unimpressed by the change. She said:
	Many women do not know when they go into the hospital whether they will be able to breastfeed. If they don't think they will breastfeed, they will have to take in a huge bag of equipment when, previously, the hospital would have trays of ready-sterilised milk available.
	My constituents see all this as part and parcel of the financial pressure that the health service is under. I accept the health service's argument about this change being made for educational reasons, but my constituents see their maternity services as being under the same pressures that other parts of the health service in Hertfordshire are facing. They will not have been altogether convinced by the response of the Secretary of State when these problems were put to her today by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. She saidI hope that I am paraphrasing her fairlythat Hertfordshire was spending too much and that it might need to make economies for the sake of other parts of the country.
	The fact is that the share of health service spending going to Hertfordshire has been reduced as a result of decisions taken by this Government. I appreciate the interest that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) is taking in what I am saying, and I am sure that he will be able to confirm that the share of health service spending per head in Hertfordshire is substantially lower than in many other parts of the country, including London, which is just next door to Hertfordshire. I would welcome it if the Minister could check that; I think that he will find that it is the case.
	The Secretary of State also mentioned the value of antenatal classes to parents from disadvantaged backgrounds. I would say gently to the Minister that, although Hertfordshire is generally prosperous, it is not, and never has been, universally prosperous. There are mothers-to-be there who would have received the antenatal classes who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and I ask the Minister to reflect on that matter when he responds to the debate. The Secretary of State said that she would write to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire about this, but I would be grateful if the Minister too would reflect on the fact that disadvantaged mothers-to-be will lose out as a result of this across-the-board loss of antenatal classes at Watford hospital. The antenatal classes have been suspended. I hope that there will be a rethink on that and that the Minister will encourage the Secretary of State to contribute to that rethink, so that we can have those antenatal classes restored.
	There is a wider question as to the health service in Hertfordshire and the Government's answer to all those serious problems, which are reflected in deficits that put Hertfordshire health authorities and primary care trusts among those with the gravest financial difficulties and leave them needing to make changes in and cuts to services to respond to those deficits. Are the Government prepared to see health services in Hertfordshire fall substantially below the level and quality of those provided in the rest of the country if that is what it will take to solve the problem of deficits? That is the question that the Government must face.
	How far down will Hertfordshire health services go? How far will maternity and other services be reduced? Is there any safety net or does there have to be a mechanical accounting procedure to reduce the deficits, even if Hertfordshire residents receive a service that is substantially inferior to that provided elsewhere in the country?

Ian Stewart: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I concur with most of the comments made by the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley), so I will try not to cover the same ground. I will put an historical perspective and then give a rationale for this matter to be referred by the Secretary of State to the appropriate committee.
	By 1996 there was a proposal to close the Royal Manchester children's hospital, also known as Pendlebury children's hospital, in my constituency of Eccles. The three Salford MPs at that time, and others, campaigned for a solutiona new children's hospital to be built adjacent to Hope hospital on the Stott lane site in Salford. The other proposal was that it should go to St. Mary's hospital in Manchester. We lost that battle and the Secretary of State indeed decided that children's services should be transferred to St. Mary's.
	At that time, Salford and Trafford health authority considered whether a new paediatric unit should be set up at Hope. There was sense in that, because Hope hospitalalso referred to earlier as the Salford Royal trustwas very close to Pendlebury children's hospital, which provided the specialist services. Hope therefore had no paediatrics, but it had excellent, well-developed neonatal and other services, including maternity.
	When we realised that the children's services would move to St. Mary's, it was sensible for us to consider putting a paediatric unit at Hope. As we moved to the situation in which the Secretary of State had made that decision, there was clearly concern in Salford about putting children's services at St. Mary'sso much so that the local council went for judicial review. I might add that Manchester city council had similar concerns about the proposal to put neurosciences at Salford and also, I understand, pursued judicial review.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), then the Secretary of State for Health, had to deal with all this, as is the norm with any serious decision of that nature. The outcome was that children's services were indeed transferred to St. Mary's in Manchester, but that Salford Hope hospital children's and maternity services would be protected. I call this the Dobson settlement.
	The basis of that protection meant that beds at other Greater Manchester hospitals had to be closed. Indeed, there was talk of some of those other hospitals having beds that were clinically unviable. If those beds went, Hope's provision would be protected. I distinctly remember similar conversations being held in relation to Booth Hall and North Manchester general hospital.
	The point here is that we have been clear that we had agreement from the Secretary of State that Salford Hope hospital services would be protected. I was informed that it would take several years for the whole reconfiguration plan to be implemented, but by 1998 it became clear that the Salford and Trafford health authority consultation process, which was designed to create a new paediatric unit at Hope hospital, had been stopped by the Department of Health.
	The then Member of Parliament for Worsley, Terry Lewis, and I complained vigorously about that decision to stop a paediatrics facility being set up at Hope. I was aware that the then chief executive of Salford and Trafford health authority, Dr. Ian Greatorex, had offered his resignation as a matter of principle over the decision to stop the process to establish paediatrics at Hope and other matters.
	Terry Lewis MP and I were sympathetic to the situation that Dr. Greatorex found himself in, and we both supported his stand. From that point, I believe that the Dobson settlement, as I refer to it, was in jeopardy. Consequently, whenever I met with anyone to discuss health issues, I would ad nauseam state that the Dobson settlement must be implemented in full.
	In 2000, I attended a meeting of Greater Manchester MPs where I set out my views about the fact that the medically unviable beds at other hospitals not being closed was stopping the implementation of the Dobson settlement and his commitment that Hope's service would be protected. I continue to promote the Dobson settlement at every opportunity.
	In autumn 2005, I received a letter from the strategic health authority saying that a new consultation process was intended to look at the provision of women's and children's services in Greater Manchester and beyond. I believe it was called Making It Better, Making It Real. I was astounded that there was no proposal that would maintain maternity provision at Hope in Salford.
	I therefore wrote immediately to the strategic health authority, saying that the proposed consultation would break the Dobson settlement, that it must include a Salford Hope hospital option and that the proposed financial model was flawed. I asked for a review of that financial model.
	The decision was to be made by a joint committee of primary care trusts. I alerted everyone else to that, as I copied my letter to Salford Hope's trust, Salford city council, the PCT and my colleague MPs. Subsequently, a broad-based Save Hope community campaign was established, which I and others supported. I continue to work with political colleagues and others on that campaign.
	In addition to meeting with the council, Hope's trust, community groups and others, I attended meetings of the joint PCTs to lobby for and press home the Salford case. The strategic health authority was forced to add an option C to the consultation, and indeed to review the financial model. In December 2006, it phoned me to say that the joint PCTs had decided to adopt option A, which meant that the Salford Hope facility would be closed.
	I hear hon. Members mutter, What about Dr. Ian Greatorex, then? He has made certain allegations regarding the period in 1998 that I described, which are in the public domain. I make no comment on that, as it is for the Member of Parliament for Salford, not for Eccles, to answer.
	Today, I ask the Secretary of State to refer the case back to the independent reconfiguration panel, but not only on the basis that the original process was flawed. I am told, although I have no written evidence yet, that the financial review shows clearly that option C would be a money saver to the tune of up to 2 million year on year.
	In addition, it is important to realise that the figures on viability quoted by the Conservative spokesman are contested. My understanding is that the maximum that any facility should offer is 6,000 births a year, and the minimum 3,000. I would argue with the way in which the joint PCTs addressed those questions, because, if the order had been changed, and those issues had been addressed first, in the Greater Manchester area Salford Hope hospital would have been found to meet both those criteria. Other hospitals within the plan under option A exceed the 6,000 births by as many as 800, and some have as few as 2,500 births a year. In my view, that would have been enough, had it been considered earlier, to rule out option A. On that basis, I must ask the Secretary of State to review the situation and to refer the decision to the independent reconfiguration panel.
	Finally, the local decision-making process was flawed

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has had his final word.

Tony Baldry: I fully appreciate the concerns of the hon. Members for Eccles (Ian Stewart) and for Worsley (Barbara Keeley).
	Having heard the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears) on the radio on 28 December, I wrote to her. I would like to share what I wrote to her with the House:
	I write, having heard you speak on 'The World at One' today on, amongst other things, explaining your decision in campaigning on the 'picket lines' last week in Salford protesting about the withdrawal of maternity care in your constituency under an NHS reorganisation.
	I think any Member of Parliament would understand your desire to represent the strong feelings of your constituents, notwithstanding your position as a member of the Cabinet and Chair of the Labour Party.
	As I am sure you will understand, there are sizeable numbers of communities across England who are feeling equally strongly about proposed reorganisation of hospital services.
	In my constituency, the Oxford Radcliffe NHS Trust have been consulting on proposals which would lead to the serious downgrading of, amongst other things, what is now a consultant-led maternity service, to what would be the largest midwife-led maternity unit in the UK.
	Furthermore, whereas I would imagine that in Manchester the distances between the various maternity services that are being reorganised in the city are comparatively short, downgrading of the maternity services at the Horton Hospital in Banbury would mean expectant mothers and others having to travel at least 26 miles, and depending on where exactly they live, potentially considerably further, to get to the maternity unit at the JR in Oxford.
	You are, of course, fortunate that as a Cabinet Minister you can raise your concerns directly with Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Healthindeed, I see that you are quoted in today's 'Guardian' as saying 'I have raised the issue ... with the Health Secretary several times.'
	Obviously it is much more difficult for Opposition MPs such as myself, to be heard by the Secretary of State.
	On the 16 January, the All Party Local Hospital Group is organising a rally at Westminster involving campaigners from hospitals across England and hopefully there will be a team there from Salford.
	I appreciate that Ministers have extremely busy diaries, but I very much hope, given the stance you have taken on NHS reorganisation in your own patch, that you might be willing to come and meet campaigners from the 'Keep the Horton General' campaign. This is a broadly based, community campaign, reflecting views of all political parties locally, and is ably led by George Parish, a longstanding local Labour councillor.
	If you were able to spare time to talk to campaigners from Banbury, it would be much appreciated and I think you would then be in a position to make it clear to Patricia Hewitt that there is widespread opposition in England to downgrading and closure of key services at General Hospitals throughout England.
	I have no complaint about a Cabinet Minister breaching collective responsibility, but there should be evenness in this matter. I hope that, on 16 January, Health Ministers and others will come to hear the concerns of many hospitals throughout the country.
	At the Horton hospital in Banbury, there is a proposal to downgrade a perfectly good consultant-led service to what will be the largest midwife-led unit in the country. Members of the House might think, Well, we as Members of Parliament would say these things, wouldn't we? However, I would just like to share with Ministers the united submission made by 85 GPs to the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust:
	We remain opposed to the proposals on the grounds of safety, sustainability and the reduction in access to basic health care and choice for our patients, which will affect especially the most vulnerable. We have little confidence in the process of 'consultation' and the spirit in which it has been conducted.
	These proposals are unsafe....Under the proposed model mothers who may fail to progress or show signs of foetal distress in the second stage of labour, or who have prolapsed cord or haemorrhage, would require very rapid transfer to Oxford. Given the numbers involved this would carry significant risk and would be inhumane.
	It is pretty telling that those 85 GPs use the words unsafe and inhumane to describe the proposals.
	The submission continues:
	There would be an increase in the burden of responsibility on midwives and ambulance crews. Legal claims following incidents where there was harm to the mother or baby might be very costly to settle.
	Babies born in need of immediate resuscitation would incur a transit time of approximately one hour. The idea that paediatric cover could be provided safely from Oxford in these circumstances is false and dangerous.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point about distances, which is one of the issues being considered in our consultation launched last month. When I was making comparisons with other countries, I should have referred to the point made effectively in a document published by the think tank Reform in December 2005: one of the reasons that countries on the continent do not have to engage in this kind of centralisation of maternity services is that they have put in place a strong neonatal transport network. We should consider that option, which would allow us not to have to centralise to the extent proposed.

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The danger in the Government's proposals, and in the way in which the Government and certain trusts are driving them, is that we will have centralisation without the previous infrastructure. Mothers in labour will often have to travel considerable distances without new infrastructure having been put in place.
	As the 85 GPs from Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire say:
	We submit the opinion of Professor James Drife who wrote in the BMJ...about the shortfalls of midwife led units.... It accords with recent publications by NICE on the safety of such units...We are not reassured and maintain that a midwife led unit with a delivery rate of 450
	babies
	per annum, which is 25 miles away from the nearest obstetrician and paediatrician, is not safe. Through no fault of the midwives working in such a unit, GPs would have to consider the wisdom of recommending mothers to this service, numbers would drop further and the service would soon become non viable ... A midwife led maternity unit, possibly lacking the confidence of local GPs, may well wither. Kidderminster had to close its unit due to excessive neonatal mortality (6 avoidable deaths in under 2 years). Increasing concern about such units is being expressed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and NICE.

Richard Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I am unlikely to be called and I need to correct that impression. Unfortunately, when Kidderminster hospital was downgraded the correct measures were not taken to keep the birth centre safe. If that had been done, the deaths would probably not have occurred. Maternity-led birth centres with the right escalation and admission protocols are entirely safe for selected, otherwise fit mothers.

Tony Baldry: As we know from NICE, from BLISS and from the experience at Kidderminster, there is a greater risk in such circumstances. The risk to the largest midwife-led unit in the country, when there is a perfectly good obstetrician and consultant-led unit, is a risk that the people of north Oxfordshire and south Northamptonshire are not prepared to take.
	In their submission, the GPs say that increasing concern about such units is being expressed by the Royal College of Gynaecologists and by NICE. They say
	The existing serious congestion at peak times and lack of parking facilities at the JRH site will be worsened by 1,000 to 1,600 extra deliveries per year. All emergency surgery and major gynaecology currently managed in North Oxfordshire will need to be absorbed by the JRH as will all paediatric cases requiring overnight assessment or admission.
	The GPs conclude that the current proposals of the Oxford Radcliffe NHS Trust
	will result in services which are unsafe and unsustainable into the future... These proposals offer neither a better deal for children nor security for a range of other services vital to our local community.
	In the face of 85 GPs collectively saying that the proposals are unsafe and inhumane, there is no way in which the trust can pretend that it is making the changes on grounds of safety. Not surprisingly, it has taken all the changes off the table and is sensibly going back to consult GPs again, properly, over a period to establish whether consensus is possible. However, the people of north Oxfordshire and south Northamptonshire are determined to retain all the general services at the Horton, and for it to remain a general hospital. They are not prepared to see services salami-sliced and cut away bit by bit, while the Horton is undermined and turned into little more than a supra-community hospital. It has been made very clear to me that if local GPs do not consider proposals from the Oxford Radcliffe NHS Trust to be safe, they will continue to argue, publicly and vocally, that the proposed services are unsafe and unacceptable.
	I hope the Government will heedbecause it has not been made sufficiently clear in the debate todaythe advice of the Royal College of Midwives, which I suspect was sent to every Member before the debate. The RCM says
	There must be a moratorium on unit closures during the current short-sighted deficit-driven cost-cutting. Short-term decisions are being made to close units and thereby save money that can be used to pay down deficits. That makes immediate financial sense, but little long-term sense. What choice will women have over their pregnancy if everything but a consultant-led maternity unit has been shut down? Reconfigurations should be properly planned in consultation with both service users and providers.
	There are two pressures on maternity-led services. First, trusts such as the Oxford Radcliffe NHS Trust are trying to save money to tackle deficits. Secondly, there seems to be a centralising tendency throughout the country that is supported by the Government, whether it is in Manchester or in Oxfordshire. Little attention seems to be paid to the views of local people or to those of GPs.
	I ask the Minister to give one simple undertaking. Ministers are always saying that they are willing to listen. I very much hope that the Minister replying today will give an undertaking to listen, and to heed the collective views of GPs. If Ministers are not willing to heed the views of GPs, what confidence can GPs' patients have in the Government's decisions? They will have no such confidence unless Ministers make it clear that they are willing to take advice and listen to GPs, rather than just listening to the views of managers in the NHS who, for their own convenience and for financial reasons, wish to centralise services, particularly maternity services.
	We are determined to ensure that mothers and babies in north Oxfordshire and south Northamptonshire continue to receive the service that they have expected for generationsa decent, consultant-led local service, not one that requires them to travel for miles to obtain the maternity service that they deserve.

John Baron: Our debate on maternity services has been good, albeit brief, and I congratulate Members on their contributions, in which they expressed concern about the future of those services. The debate is timely, as many maternity units throughout the country face closure.
	The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) raised the issue of deficits and the link to closures, as highlighted by the Health Committee; he was right to do so. The hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) made a thoughtful contribution. She said that although she does not support the option recommended locally, which will result in the loss of services at Salford royal hospital, she will stand by the decision. However, she also rightly stated that services should be based near to where need is greatest, and she made the point that Salford has one of the highestthe third highest, I thinkbirth rate in the country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made a good speech. He mentioned the effect of staff shortages and cuts in his part of Hertfordshire. He revealed that his local trust is making cuts and closing services because of financial deficits. He also commented on the lack of choice in how and where women can give birth.
	The hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) talked about the implications of paediatric services in his area being moved away. He confirmed the powerful case made by Dr. Greatorex in his letter of many years ago; he stated that, under what he called the Dobson settlement, he felt he had been given an assurance that the remaining services at Hope hospital in Salford would be protectedan assurance given to him by a former Secretary of State. However, with option A now being chosen, that appears unlikely.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred powerfully to a survey of 85 local GPs who used the word inhumane in describing proposed changes to maternity services in his area. He raised the important issue of the distance to the nearest services in considering the well-being of patients, and he reminded Members that there is oftennot only in his constituency, but in constituencies throughout the countrya contradiction between the views of local people and GPs and the decisions made by primary care trusts, which are in many cases under financial pressure and therefore wish to centralise services.
	Our brief debate has, at heart, been about three key issues: first, the inability of the NHS to offer genuine choice, where clinically appropriate, to women about how and where they give birth; secondly, the loss of much-loved local services as part of reconfigurations taking place in the absence of any evidence-based model for safe and accessible care, which is a point that the hon. Member for Worsley made; and, thirdly and overarching the other issues, the shortage of midwives in the NHS at a time of financial difficulty and deficits.
	The Government often accuse the Conservative party of scaremongeringwhich is somewhat predictable, but never mind. However, for evidence of the impending crisis in the maternity work force we need look no further than the survey of the heads of midwifery published this week by the Royal College of Midwives, which has been referred to. Two thirds reported that their unit was understaffed, while one in five claimed that midwifery staffing establishment had been cut. I ask the Minister to say in his summation whether that is scaremongering.
	In the past year alone, the overall head count of midwives working in the NHS fell, while the number of whole-time equivalent midwivesthe best measure for the availability of a midwife at any single point in timeincreased by a mere 5 per cent. between 1997 and 2005. That has been happening during a period when the birth rate has been rising rapidly, and the maternity case mix is becoming more complex as women choose to give birth both earlier and later in life.
	The jobs crisis in maternity leads to existing midwives being overworked and, sometimes, unable to cope. Indeed, the RCM has said publicly that midwives are struggling to provide good care. Does the Minister believe that to be scaremongering?
	There is little doubt that jobs and training posts are being cut for short-term financial reasons, due to deficits. An analysis of the financial outturn figures published in  Hansard on 9 October 2006 clearly shows that three quarters of the midwife-led maternity units under threat are operated by trusts with financial deficits. But this short-term fix is highly irresponsible given the ageing profile of the midwifery work force and the impact on newly qualified midwives unable to get that all-important first job in the health service.
	With the RCM now claiming that NHS trusts are increasingly reliant on maternity care assistants and employing fewer newly qualified midwives, what a betrayal is that of midwives who were encouraged to join the profession to address long-term shortages and have been trained at a cost to the taxpayer of 45,000 but now cannot find that first post. Again, does the Minister believe that to be scaremongering?

Paul Rowen: I want to make the House aware of some figures. I asked the Government whether they had figures for the numbers of student midwives getting jobs. They did not, but I can tell the House that of the 36 students who finished last year at Salford university, only three have got a job, and one of those has had to emigrate. That reinforces the hon. Gentleman's point that these difficulties with training have a financial cause. The midwives are there, but they are not being given the jobs.

John Baron: I totally concur with those figures. The University of West of England figures show that about two thirds of those leaving training posts were unable to find jobs in the NHS. That contradicts what has been suggested by Ministers up to now.
	While I am on the subject, I point quickly to something that the Secretary of State said about the European working time directive. She certainly seemed to downplay the effect that it has had on decisions about services. I refer her to the independent reconfiguration panel's comments regarding the Calderdale and Huddersfield trust. It says that proposals for a paediatric rota to support consultant-led maternity services at Huddersfield royal infirmary were explored, but were not considered viable in the light of the implementation of the European working time directive. It is clearly wrong for Ministers to go round the country suggesting that the directive has had little or no effect on decisions about reconfiguration and closure.
	As for the effect on patients, one thing is certain. The Government's 2005 manifesto commitment to offer every woman one-to-one midwifery support cannot be met unless swift action is taken to improve our midwife numbers. One-to-one care is the gold standard in maternity and places women at the centre of the NHS. It has our support. Will the Minister explain how that promise will be implemented when there is such a shortage of midwives?
	Further to that, will the Minister make a brief statement, either now or in writing, about the viability of the community midwifery model developed by the Independent Midwives Association? The IMA has been invited to apply for a pathfinder grant to roll out the model in a trial PCT, but so far its proposal has not been given ministerial backing.
	Of course, one-to-one-midwifery support is only one piece in the maternity jigsaw; another is the provision of choice about where a woman gives birth, whether at home, in a midwife-led environment or in a consultant-led unit, and about the methods of pain relief being used. The provision of such choice is clearly important for the promotion of well-being in childbirth. The principle is enshrined in the 2005 Labour party manifesto, in the maternity standard of the national service framework and in the draft NICE guidance on intrapartum care. It is a vital feature of the patient-centred NHS, yet the Government are still complicit in the closure of midwife-led units and birth centres for short-term financial reasons, insisting that it is a matter for the local NHS while doing nothing to promote alternatives. Before Christmas, we were able to identify approximately 20 midwife-led units that were either being closed or facing closure, each of which was a much-loved local institution.
	The threat of closure hangs over not just midwife-led units and community birth centres, because major reconfigurations are threatening consultant-led units and specialised services and there are proposals of centralisation around maternity super-centres. Communities throughout the country face the loss of much-loved local hospitals. Before Christmas, we identified a further 20 consultant-led units that were facing the threat of closure or being downgraded. That figure was challenged before Christmas, so it was interesting that Secretary of State did not bother to challenge any of the figures on proposed closures during today's debate.
	There is little doubt that the closures in some places are occurring for short-term financial reasons in order to save the Secretary of State's political skin. In others, however, service redesign is being guided by a confused and often conflicting idea about the best size and style of maternity services for the promotion of safety and accessibility. On the continent, large maternity units are the exception. The largest unit in Germany has just more than 3,000 live births a year. However, in this country, we seem hellbent on channelling women into ever larger maternity units. The number of maternity units delivering fewer than 3,000 births a year has halved since 1996, yet there is no evidence-based model of care for maternity services to suggest that that is the right course of actionit is fundamentally wrong. Will the Minister take this opportunity to express his commitment to a consultation and national debate on the topic, or is this another area in which the official Opposition must take the lead and engage professionals and women to develop policy?
	To illustrate, or indeed to emphasise, the confusion at the heart of the Government over these issues, one need look no further than the extraordinary spectacle of Ministers endorsing the Prime Minister's call for service reconfiguration in principle at a national level, yet shamelessly opposing the implication of such a policy when it affects their constituencies. The right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears) is a case in point. She sees it fit to stand up for the people of Salford when there is a television crew in her constituency, but not here in the House of Commons. She has said:
	I have been putting forward the views of the people of Eccles and Salford
	well, she did not put them forward today.

Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Baron: I will not because I am short of time and must wind up.

Ian Stewart: I am the Member for Eccles.

John Baron: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I was citing a quote.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who is responsible for maternity services, is happy to tell constituents of ours that they must lose local services as part of necessary reconfigurations and to accuse us of scaremongering when we talk about maternity closures, but he is quick to oppose closures when they happen in his own back yard. Ministers are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand they support the principle of a national service redesign yet, on the other hand, they oppose closures when they affect their constituencies. It is a blatant case of do as I say, not as I do, if ever there was one. If these Ministers carry on in that way, they will be beating a path to the Liberals' door very shortly. The reason for that embarrassing inconsistency is that the reconfigurations are not guided by an evidence-based model of maternity care.
	In short, the Government are all over the shop on this issue. Meanwhile, in the words of Louise Silverton, the deputy general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, just before Christmas,
	women are not getting the service they want, and midwives cannot do the things they want.
	I put it to the House that the Government should stop hiding behind accusations of scaremongering and instead face up to reality and get on with the job of putting things right.

Ivan Lewis: The Conservative party still has no shame. As we sit here at the beginning of 2007, let us never forget the realities of 1997: a national health service on its knees; crumbling hospitals; underpaid staff; outdated technology; disgraceful waiting lists and waiting times; a shortage of doctors and nurses; and policies that were silent on the scandal of health inequality. What of the past 10 years? Conservative Members have championed policies to encourage people to opt out of the national health service. They have proposed a funding system that would take no account of health inequality, and they have systematically set about rubbishing the NHS and its continued progress at every turn.
	We should remember the Opposition's big claim of last year. Apparently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), who is Minister without Portfolio, were involved in a conspiracy to protect Labour MPs from changes in services that would be unpopular in their constituencies. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will forgive me when I say that, if the claim was true, that would have been one of the most inept conspiracies in history! However, the reality is that the reconfiguration recommendations were made by local professionals who are not politically motivated.
	The Opposition have now changed tack, and claim that we are hypocrites. For my part, that is apparently because I continue to oppose the closure of maternity services at Fairfield hospital in Bury. I am content for the facts to speak for themselves. Contrary to what has been said, Fairfield hospital is not in my constituencyso much for Opposition Members' research.
	Moreover, the majority of my constituents use hospitals that will gain from the proposed changes. The total additional investment in North Manchester, Central Manchester and Bolton amounts to 24.1 million, 900,000 and 12.5 million, respectively. Those figures do not include extra resources for community services, but the Tories describe the changes that have led to that extra investment of 37.5 million as cuts.
	Since the Greater Manchester consultation began more than two years ago, I have believed in and supported the view of professionals that there needs to be change, that the status quo is not viable and that there has to be a reduction in maternity units across the area. Equally, I have opposed a solution that would leave the Bury, Rochdale, Rossendale and Heywood communities without one consolidated maternity service, and I have done so for the very good reasons frequently articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) who, along with other hon. Members, has campaigned tirelessly on the issue.
	If I had ditched that view on the day that I became a health Ministerif I had abandoned the local campaigners whom I had supported and turned my back on parliamentary colleaguesthat would have been true hypocrisy. In addition, it would be hypocritical if Bury's hosting of a unit to serve four distinct communities were in any way contrary to Government policy, but it is not. It would also be hypocritical of me if I were to argue for the status quo in Manchester when I knew that it was unsafe and against the public interest, but I am not doing so.
	Our wonderful system of democracy, which means that Ministers have to deal with the daily realities faced by their constituents, should be celebrated and not undermined. Yes, Ministers sometimes face tensions and dilemmas but, if they do not agree with decisions at a local level, they have a right to make that clear in a way that is consistent and in accordance with the process enshrined in legislation.

Andrew Lansley: The Minister contends that the reconfiguration of services in Greater Manchester is needed but that Fairfield hospital should be maintained for geographical reasons. Is it therefore his view that maternity services at North Manchester and Rochdale should still be shut down?

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. Services at North Manchester will be newly created and state of the art, so his intervention is nonsensical. The inconsistency is his: he always claims to believe in local decisions made by professionals, yet in this afternoon's debate he has rubbished the judgment of those same professionals. I am sure that professionals in Greater Manchester will read his contributions to the debate with great interest.
	I turn now to maternity services. There is no more important period in a family's life than the birth of a child. For the mother, the experience is intensely emotional and personal, and the same is true for the father and the extended family. Our responsibility is to ensure that the birth is safe, secure and, if at all possiblenotwithstanding the physical pain for the mothera truly special and unique experience. For this Government, every baby matters is the foundation of Every Child Matterswhether it be ensuring that parents do not smoke or drink during pregnancy, good nutrition, the nature of the birth experience, or positive parenting support, including the encouragement of breastfeeding in post-natal care.

Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you would want me to raise a point of order to ask the Minister to correct the record. The Minister said that there were no maternity services at the North Manchester hospital, but the consultation document of Manchester PCTs says that over the latest 12-month period of 2004-05, there were 2,587 births at North Manchester general hospital.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suspect that that is more a matter of debate than a point of order for the Chair.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) referred to the closure of the unit at North Manchester general hospital, which I know to be absolute nonsense.
	For some parents, the level of professional and community intervention should be and will be minimal. For others, it will be more intensive to ensure that every child gets the best possible start in life and every parent has the chance to be the best they can. Our 10 health-led parenting project sites will test out a new approach, which has the potential to make a radical difference to a child's development and thus their lifelong opportunities.
	The Secretary of State and I will shortly make proposals to support the NHS to deliver our historic promise of real maternity choice for all parents by 2009. Professionals and managers should seek to reorganise services in a way that is consistent with the aims of safety, quality and choice, based on local knowledge and follows proper and authentic engagement with the local community.
	I want to deal with specific contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) described reconfigurations driven by finance. The requirement for the NHS to get its books into balance is one for which we make no apology, and the reconfiguration that I know best began in Manchester about two and a half or three years ago. It has absolutely nothing to do with any financial challenges that the NHS faces at the moment. The Liberal Democrats say that we should not oppose reconfiguration per sethere is a first for the Liberal Democrats: not opposing things for the sake of it, whatever the best interests of the wider population.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) made a good case for Hope hospital and the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) talked about the temporary suspension of antenatal classes for first-time mums. I certainly cannot intervene in that, but I will write to him to find out further details about why that happened. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that, under the funding formula advocated by his Front Benchers, his constituents would be 9.2 per cent. a head worse off than under the current NHS funding formula.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) has a longstanding and impressive track record of campaigning for the development of paediatric and maternity services and their maintenance at Hope hospital. He has been a passionate and powerful advocate in that context both publicly and privately. My hon. Friend's call for it to be referred to the Secretary of State depends on the decisions taken by the overview and scrutiny committees of the individual local authorities affected by the decisions. I know that he has had discussions with his own overview and scrutiny committee in Salford.
	The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) is concerned about reconfiguration. There is a process and professionals will make their views known locally. The overview and scrutiny committee will have an opportunity to make its judgment; if it is unhappy, it has the option under the legislation to refer the matter to the Secretary of State.
	In conclusion, real hypocrisy in the NHS is claiming support for it at every opportunity, while voting against extra investment. It is championing local decision making and operational independence, while portraying every change to local services as a cut. It is promising to match NHS spending, while having an economic policy that will require millions of pounds of NHS cuts. Real hypocrisy is criticising the Government's work force strategy when there are 33,000 more doctors and 85,000 more nurses since 1997. Opposition Members have no shame.
	We should contrast that with the present Government's policies on the NHS. By 2009, every woman will have choice over where and how they have their babies and what pain relief to use. We want every woman to be supported throughout her pregnancy by a named midwife. By 2008, no one will have to wait for an operation more than 18 weeks from the date of their first GP visit to the door of the operating theatre. By 2008, there will be 2,500 children centres; and there will be 3,500 by 2010.
	It was the Labour party that created the NHS, it was the Labour party that was asked by the people to save it in 1997, and it is the Labour Government who, fittingly, are charged with its transformation. The NHS is the glue that binds the values of the Labour party and the British people. We have no need to prove that the NHS is safe in our hands, only the awesome responsibility of ensuring that the NHS completes the journey from a third-world health service in 1997 to a world-class health service in time for its 60th anniversary in 2008.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	 The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 324.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr Deputy Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the extra investment in NHS maternity services under this Government; further welcomes the endorsement by the Royal College of Midwives of the ambitious vision for maternity services; notes that this investment has funded 2,400 more midwives than in 1997 and supported a 44 per cent. increase in students entering the midwifery profession, and that the latest surveys show that 8 out of 10 women say they are satisfied with their maternity care; recognises the preparatory work underway to deliver the Government's manifesto commitment that by 2009 all women will have the choice over where and how they have their baby and what pain relief to use, and that every woman will be supported by the same midwife throughout her pregnancy, with this support linked to other services provided in children's centres; supports the focus of services to tackle inequalities; and recognises that maternity services will need to continue to change in order to deliver this commitment and to ensure that the NHS provides the safest and most effective maternity care for babies, parents and families and the best possible value for money for taxpayers.

Sub Post-Offices

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the debate on the future of the sub-post office network. I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Alan Duncan: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises the contribution that sub-post offices make in communities across the country; pays tribute to sub-postmasters and postmistresses for the service they provide; believes that sub-post offices have a key role to play in delivering new services in those communities for local councils, businesses and consumers; condemns the Government's short-sighted plan to close 2,500 sub-post offices; and urges the Government to allow sub-post offices greater freedom to develop their businesses.
	The motion reflects the concerns of millions of people about the decimation of the post office network. The statement that the Secretary of State made to the House in December was insufficient to put at rest the minds of thousands of sub-postmasters and millions of people who rely on their local post office. When he came to the House last month to unveil his post offices plan, he claimed that his proposals would
	put the post office network on a stable footing and ensure that there is a national network across the country.[ Official Report, 14 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 1028.]
	The measures in that statement are quite unclear about the way in which the Government will achieve that, and that is precisely why we have called for this debate.
	The consultation document that the Secretary of State published last month outlines policies to close nearly a fifth of the remaining network; to compensate sub-postmasters who are pushed out; and to introduce new access criteria for the network. The statement was disappointing and wrong, and it will cause fear and anxiety among many people, particularly the most vulnerable, in every part of the country. Despite the fact that the Government have closed a quarter of the post offices in this country, their rhetoric about the importance of post offices has always been optimistic. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). recognised that
	post offices are an essential part of the country's social fabric.[ Official Report, 19 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 937.]
	A previous postal services Minister, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner), said:
	The Government want to see a post office network that can prosper.[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 11 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 128WH.]
	Oh yeah?
	More recently, Ministers have changed their tune, and they now argue that there are too many post offices. Hence their proposals, announced last month, to close a further 2,500. With over 4,000 post offices already closed and another 2,500 due to go in the next two years, the Government have earned themselves the record, by a large margin, for closing post offices faster than any other Government in history.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making excellent progress. Does he accept that European Union rules, in particular article 88 of the treaty of Amsterdam, mean that the British Government can no longer pay the 150 million social network payment which has kept small post offices open? That is a major problem. In view of that, does my hon. Friend think it is time to re-address our EU membership?

Hon. Members: Answer!

Alan Duncan: I am pleased to say that I had my deaf ear towards my hon. Friend, but I will come to the essence of his point.
	The Government have pointed out that post offices closed under the last Conservative Government too, but let no one be in any doubt that under this Labour Government, post offices have closed at almost three times the rate they did when we were in government. I shall give the House the figures. From 1985 to 1997 post offices closed at the rate of 201 per year, but under the present Government the rate of closure has been over 580 a year. Such massive cuts in the network have deprived thousands of vulnerable people of their vital services. Once again, the Government are ignoring the concerns of millions of people. What assurance can the Secretary of State give the House that the cuts will not be more than the 2,500 that he has already announced?

Philip Davies: As my hon. Friend knows, the permanent post office in Bingley in my constituency has closed and we have only a temporary facility there. Does he agree that a town the size of Bingley should have a permanent post office, and that the Royal Mail and the Government should do everything possible to make sure that a permanent post office facility is maintained in Bingley?

Alan Duncan: That is a perfect example of the problem in the network. One would have thought that a town as important as Bingley, represented by my hon. Friend, would merit a post office, but the present system means that it will close, and even his hardworking efforts on behalf of his constituents will come up against the buffers. Perhaps the Secretary of State can explain how large a town must be before it can justify a post office.

Colin Challen: I notice that the hon. Gentleman's motion calls for greater freedom for the Post Office to develop. Does that freedom include the return of business which has been lost to the Post Office, such as the payment of benefits and payment of the TV licence, and would a Conservative Government subsidise those payments if that was the way forward?

Alan Duncan: Nice try. I shall come to that in a moment. We are arguing for greater commercial freedom, which I shall define, if the hon. Gentleman will let me proceed.
	I do not believe that Labour Ministers necessarily dislike the Post Office or that they have deliberately set out to cut a swathe through the network.  [Interruption.] That view does not appear to be shared by those on the Conservative Benches behind me.
	I am ever generous to my opposite number, but despite the Secretary of State's good intentions, Ministers have repeatedly failed to deliver on the words that they have uttered over the past decade. They have gone for easy headlines, but their actions have not matched their words. The problem has been and remains that the Government do not have a long-term strategy for the post office network. They say they want to support it, but in practice they have removed business from it and have failed to make the reforms necessary to underpin the network that exists at present.

John Gummer: The reforms surely ought also to be in the way the Post Office operates. Is it not true that the Post Office is stuck in a model which is way out of line with other retailers, and that one of the problems is that it cannot catch up? The Government have some responsibility for not insisting on a much more up-to-date system.

Alan Duncan: My right hon. Friend makes a serious point that is crucially entwined with the issue of the network but also takes us to the question that I shall deal with in a momentthat of ensuring, through its ownership and future investment, that the activities of Royal Mail can marry happily with the post office network.

Hywel Williams: An important part of the context is that local communities face the closure not only of post offices but Department for Work and Pensions offices and tax offices. That will be a triple whammy that rural communities in Wales and elsewhere can scarcely bear.

Alan Duncan: I am sure that you would caution me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were I to stray on to the operation of other Departments, but there is a serious point about how they operate in conjunction with the post office network. An essential part of our proposals is that the entire apparatus of government, particularly local government, can consider how it can properly use the post office network and channel much of its activity through it so as to give it a chance to remain in place.
	To see why the network has been declining under this Government, we need to recognise how they have reduced the amount of Government business that post offices can undertake. The Government have not merely given people the option of, say, having their pensions paid into their bank accountsthey have, as is pretty well documented, used strong-arm tactics to press pensioners who wanted to support their local post office by using the Post Office card account into giving up their accounts. Customers no longer have the option of buying a TV licence at the post office or of having a pension book. The Government even considered removing passport services and abolishing the Post Office card account. Such measures not only massively reduce direct revenue for sub-postmasters but reduce footfall in branches and reduce the amount of non-Government business that branches do.

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is rightly identifying the hurdles that the Government put in the way of people who wanted to sign up for the Post Office card account when it was first introduced. One of the biggest risks to the Post Office's Government business in future is that when the replacement for the card account is introduced the Government may carry on with the same sort of bullying tactics to try to prevent people from switching to it. Those tactics would have a seriously detrimental effect on post offices, especially in vulnerable areas such as the highlands and islands.

Alan Duncan: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. The ongoing uncertainty about the size of the network has hindered Post Office Ltd. whenever it has bid for contracts such as the TV licence contract, which it lost. The uncertainty created by the Government hinders its commercial ambition and scope.
	When Adam Crozier said that he could fulfil Royal Mail's obligations with just 4,000 post offices, he created huge speculation about the future of the network. The Government needed to put an end to that speculation, but unfortunately the Secretary of State's statement to the House in December failed to achieve that objective.

Ian Lucas: Why, then, does the hon. Gentleman think that the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters said that that statement
	provided a welcome first step to arrest the decline of the post office network?

Alan Duncan: A first step it may be, but the trouble is that there are many more steps to be taken, and with greater certainty than in December.
	Part of the remaining speculation centres around the Post Office card account. That was designed to be a very simple form of account that can only have benefit payments made into it, but it is used by more than 4 million people, and transactions made with it account for 10 per cent of a sub-postmaster's net pay.
	For most of 2006, the Government's message was that POCA would be scrapped in 2010. In December, the Secretary of State came to the House and promised some sort of replacement card account, although he gave no assurance that the Department for Work and Pensions would end the pressure that it has put on vulnerable benefit recipients to give up their card account. Of course, the U-turn in the face of pressure from Conservative Members was welcome. However, the Secretary of State created further uncertainty by announcing that the operation of the successor system would be put out to tender.
	If the Post Office's ability to bid for the contract is hampered by speculation and uncertainty, pensioners may pick up their money from Paypoint outlets in a few years, with enormous consequent losses to the Post Office. The stark truth is that the very plan that the Secretary of State announced to enhance the post office network could prove to be the Trojan horse that poses the greatest threat to it.
	The Government must recognise that continuing uncertainty is doing great harm to the prospects of a sustainable future for the post office network.

Peter Luff: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the keys to the future prosperity of the sub-post office network is the Post Office card account having greater functionality and being more flexible than the current inflexible and inadequate version?

Alan Duncan: I agree, and some Labour Members claim that the successor account will do that. I hope that the Secretary of State will give that commitment today.

Robert Smith: The Government must understand and reinforce the important message that so many people chose the card account because it was a safe way for them to budget. There is no risk of bank charges or accidental overdrafts. It is important that they should not be bullied prematurely into moving into a banking system where those on low incomes are at risk of facing high charges.

Alan Duncan: Let me marry all the interventions by converting them into questions for the Secretary of State. Will he tell us today the timetable for tendering for the successor card account? What differences will there be between the current POCA and its successor?
	Uncertainty also surrounds the social network subsidy. In answer to parliamentary questions, the Secretary of State was unable to give a future figure for that. However, he said that it was not expected to exceed the current annual sum of 150 million. We can only conclude that the Government are planning to cut the subsidy that they provide to maintain the post office network. That is hardly reassuring to the thousands of sub-postmasters who rely on the money. The Secretary of State squints when I say that, so I look forward to a clear commitment that the figure will remain the same.
	It is worth noting that the Government call the payment to the social network a subsidy. When the Chancellor spends billions on the NHS, he never calls it spending, it is always described as investment. However, when the Government want to get away with reducing their support, even though it fulfils an important social purpose, they call it reducing subsidy.
	The ownership of Royal Mail is another uncertain matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) referred to that. The Government currently own all the shares. However, Royal Mail's management is still waiting for Ministers to decide on their proposals for employee share ownership. As the postal services market has been liberalised, Royal Mail, as my right hon. Friend again pointed out, has begun to face stiff competition from technologically well equipped rivals. If it is to compete effectively, it must be able to make significant investment. However, it must also change its methods to respond to a changed marketplace.
	The Government have shown support for employee share ownership schemes in other sectors and they must now decide whether to back the management of Royal Mail and allow a share trust scheme to be set up. Will the Secretary of State tell us by what date he will make a decision about the proposal? Or, if, in the Government's current state of paralysis, he is unable to make a decision, will he confirm that the matter will have to await the arrival of the Chancellor?

Susan Kramer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: It would be a great pleasure.

Susan Kramer: I am always delighted to give pleasure [Interruption.] I shall not take that further.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of the ownership of the Royal Mail Group and discussed employee trust ownership. However, as he knows, part privatisation is the only mechanism to get significant new investment into the family. Is he committing the Conservatives to partor even wholeprivatisation?

Alan Duncan: I am asking the Government the questions. They are about to give us a clear view on this matter. I have studied the Liberal Democrats' proposalsthe hon. Lady may intervene on me to explain them if she likesinvolving a part-privatisation, with some money being given to the pension fund and some being used for investment. I think that she will have to look again, however, at the difference in economics between stocks and flows, because I am not sure that the arithmetic will add up over time, once the proposal has been studied in more detail.

Susan Kramer: So, was that a yes?

Alan Duncan: Yes to the hon. Lady's proposal?
	Back in December, the Government tried to sweeten the bitter pill of post office closures by claiming that their new access criteria would ensure that no one would live further than three miles from a post office. However, as Age Concern has pointed out, those access criteria take no account of the availability of public transport to reach alternative services. Nor do they take account of the number of benefit recipients in a given area who rely on a post office for access to their money.
	The setting of access criteria has been suggested in the past. However, in 2000, the Prime Minister's own strategy unit rejected the idea, saying that
	numerical access criteria could well undermine the Government's policy rather than strengthen it.
	The strategy unit went on to point out that such a commitment would not be worth the paper that it was written on. It made it clear that
	it would be possible for the Post Office to close down two-thirds of its rural outlets whilst still ensuring that 99 per cent. of people in rural areas lived within 3 miles of a post office.
	Perhaps Ministers simply forgot to mention this fact in their policy document. In fact, there are a number of things missing from the Government's statement on the future of the Post Office. Most importantly, for instance, are radical proposals such as those that the Conservatives set out in October, to provide the essential reforms needed to give the post office network a genuine and sustainable future.

Kate Hoey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that difficulties with the access criteria exist not only in rural areas? In many urban areaseven in my constituency, close to the Palace of Westminsterelderly people or people with disabilities might live quite close to a sub-post office, but if it is closed it can be difficult for them to reach another one. Access is an urban issue just as much as a rural one.

Alan Duncan: I totally agree with the hon. Lady, and I am happy to echo her comments. One cannot stress often enough that the issue of post office closures is as much an urban issue as a rural one.
	What the Government should have announced in December was, first, that they would give sub-postmasters greater freedom to find new business opportunities. At present, Royal Mail writes clauses into sub-postmasters' contracts forbidding them to take on certain business opportunities that might transform their finances, if only they had the chance. The long-term future of the network will be best secured if the Post Office is opened up to new markets and new customers. Just as many pubs that were tied to one brewery are now free houses, so post offices should be released from their ties and be allowed to offer a broader range of services.
	We recognise the fantastic service provided by sub-postmasters to their local communities. They tell us that they do not want to depend on subsidy, but instead want the opportunity to do more business and serve their customers, yet that is exactly what the Government are denying them. Conservatives would rewrite the sub-postmasters' contract, allowing them to provide a greater range of products and services, including private mail services. Will the Secretary of State give the same assurance today?
	Secondly, the Government should be following the lead of Conservatives in encouraging local councils to see what services they can provide through post offices and whether they could use the post office network in their area better to engage with local residents. There have been a number of plans and pilot schemes aimed at using post offices as one-stop shops to provide a wide range of information and services from local government and other local bodies, but the Government, instead of extending the range of service that they allow councils to offer, restrict it. Will the Secretary of State undertake to look at that again?
	What about using post offices as a hub for government information? We are looking at how we can provide for people who have concerns about a range of Government services to be able to access advice and answers at their post office. The Government have talked about doing that, but the delivery, as so often, has added up to nothing. May I ask the Secretary of State also to look at that again?
	On both sides of the House, there is an understanding that huge social benefits accrue from the post office network, but it is less well documented that there are clear economic benefits too. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell the House what research his Department has done on that issue. I understand that the Treasury did a study and found that for each pound of support that the Government have put into the network, there has been more than 2 of economic benefit to the local area.
	The Department of Trade and Industry should be thinking that if it can make the conditions right for more post offices to be successful, it will reap the economic benefits. Instead, the best that we have seen from the Secretary of State is a plan for the management of the decline of the post office network.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem with those who are senior managers responsible for Crown offices or groups of Crown offices is that they are only cost accountable and have only cost targets? The only way that they can meet those cost targets is by staff reduction. Would it not be a more normal business procedure to make them profit accountable, so that they could grow the revenue instead of always having to cut staff? They would also have control of their balance sheets, so they could do property deals, for example, if that was also a way to improve the business and make money.

Alan Duncan: I look upon that intervention as an exciting teaser for the brilliant policy document that my right hon. Friend is due to produce later in the year, but the basic point is right.
	Instead of managing decline, Conservatives are developing policies that can give a level of hope and certainty to sub-postmasters. Conservative Members are prepared to give the business people who run our sub-post offices a chance and a future.

Alistair Darling: rose

Alan Duncan: I am just about to finish, but I suppose it would be churlish not to allow the Secretary of State one little moment.

Alistair Darling: Absolutely, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always generous in giving way to him, although that may stop too. Before he gets to the final part of his peroration, will he tell us whether any post office should ever close?

Alan Duncan: That is easy. Of course some will close. That is the easiest question in the world to answer, but it is the magnitude and scale of the closures, which the Secretary of State is overseeing at 580 a year, that are causing everyone the concern that we are expressing today.
	We want to give sub-postmasters a framework in which they can develop their businesses and make profits, whereas they are currently constrained and forced into loss. Unlike Labour, we will not limit sub-postmasters. We will give them the tools that they need to ensure that the post office network can thrive and continue to fulfil the important role that it plays in our local communities, which is why I urge the House to support our motion.

Alistair Darling: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	acknowledges the important role that post offices play in local communities, particularly in rural and deprived urban areas; recognises that the business environment in which Royal Mail and the post office network are operating is undergoing radical change, with more and more people choosing new electronic ways to communicate, pay bills and access Government services; applauds the Government's record of working closely with Royal Mail, Post Office Ltd. and sub-postmasters to help them meet these challenges with an unprecedented investment of more than 2 billion made by the Government in supporting the network since 1999; endorses the Government's firm commitment to ensuring the continuation of the network, while acknowledging the widely held view that its present size is unsustainable; supports the Government's approach of allowing Royal Mail the freedom to respond to future commercial challenges and opportunities, and in particular enabling Post Office Limited to determine the future shape of the network within clear Government rules governing criteria for local access, a requirement to develop new outreach services, full public consultation on proposals for each affected area and a continuing commitment to social network payments by the Government to reflect sub-post offices' social role; and welcomes the Government's renewed commitment to allowing the public to get their pensions and benefits in cash from post offices if they choose to do so, including a successor to the Post Office card account when the current contract expires in 2010..
	I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the proposals that I made in December, which have led to the consultation that is under way. I dare say that there will be many other opportunities for the House to debate them further. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) could not be with us on the day that I made my statement, so it was interesting to hear for the first time what his policy is.
	May I say out the outset that these are difficult decisions? The post office network is facing a difficult time. I take as my starting point the conclusion of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, chaired by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) who is in his place, that there is a widespread belief that the present network of 14,500 branches is unsustainable. The National Federation of SubPostmasters itself has said that.
	When post offices have seen fewer and fewer people coming through their front doors over a number of years, with the associated loss of business, the House and any Government must consider what is to be done. Do we let closures continue on a haphazard basis, or do we try to manage the situation to provide support for the post office network while at the same time taking the action that we believe is necessary to put the network on a stable and long-term footing?

Peter Luff: I look forward to the Secretary of State appearing before my Select Committee two weeks today to discuss this issue again. I hate to correct him, but the starting point of the Select Committee's report was that the Government have withdrawn services from the post office network and so accelerated its decline.

Alistair Darling: I will deal with that point, but it is not unreasonable for me to point to the conclusion reached not just by the hon. Gentleman's Committee but, as he said, by the witnesses that appeared before it. Like the previous Government, we have been seeing post office closures year after year; I will come on to the question of Government business later. We must, however, address the question of what we can realistically do to ensure that we have a national network. For the avoidance of doubt, I have always been clear that we need many more branches than the number that are commercially viable. We need a national network of branches to ensure that people the length and breadth of the United Kingdom can get their benefits and pensions.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alistair Darling: I will give way, but not to everybody at once. I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith).

Geraldine Smith: Many people accept that changes in society mean that people have benefits and pensions paid into bank accounts. Surely the solution for the post office network is to find new businessto make the post office a shop front for Government services Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to a new Post Office bank account, which could be popular with the public?

Alistair Darling: I agree that the objective must be to do whatever we can to encourage new business in the post office. If I may, I will deal with the bank account issue later. The new chief executive of the Post Office has made it clear that he wants to encourage new business. I think that I am right that the Post Office is now one of the major providers of foreign currency exchange and is selling travel insurance and various other products that are bringing people into post offices. We want to encourage that. However, the fundamental problem is that over a number of years, under both Conservative and Labour Governments, fewer and fewer people have been going into the post office, which has created financial problems.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alistair Darling: I will give way to hon. Members in my own time.
	In 1996, the last full year of the Conservative Administration, about 20 per cent. of people receiving benefits and pensions had their money paid directly into a bank account. Therefore, the problem has not just started in the past few years: it has been gathering pace ever since direct payments were introduced in, I think, the mid-1980s. As I said in my statement to the House in December, the problem is that over a number of years people's shopping and banking habits, including their use of the internet and e-mail, have meant that, one way or another, fewer and fewer of them have come into the post office. Let me deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and others that the Government are somehow forcing that to happen.
	For years people have been choosing to have money paid into their bank accounts, such as child benefit and pensions. Indeed, most new pension claimants now ask for that to happen. I believe that people have the right to choose. It has been happening for yearsand yes, it has resulted in fewer people going into the post office, but that too has been happening for a number of years.
	The hon. Gentleman made much play of the fact that the Conservatives closed only 3,500 post offices, and that a greater number had been closed since then. The difference is that in the Conservative days the closures happened on a haphazard basis, and the Post Office was given no support to help it to deal with the situation.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alistair Darling: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), because he rose first.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Secretary of State says that haphazard closures are occurring, and says that he wants a consultation to establish a rational basis. If the current closures are haphazard, as he says, will he call a moratorium on unnecessary closures so that all closures can be considered on a rational basis?

Alistair Darling: What I said was that during the Conservative years closures took place on a haphazard basis, and no attempt was made to help the Post Office manage the situation.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alistair Darling: I will give way in a moment.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton saidhe made some play of this as wellthat part of the problem was that the Government were encouraging people to have their benefits and pensions paid directly into their bank accounts. Yes, the Government have done that, for two reasons. First, as I said earlier, people were choosing to do it anyway. Secondly, all Governments have been under pressure to make themselves more efficient and to cut costs.
	The hon. Gentleman impliedand did not respond to one of my hon. Friends, who challenged him to say whether he would stop the processthat it was somehow wrong to encourage people to have their benefits or pensions paid into a bank account where that was appropriate. At the last general election, the Conservatives' central plank on economic matters was their endorsement of the James report, which explicitly expressed support for the benefit payment system. In other words, the money that was saved had been banked by the Conservatives. It is a bit much for them to suggest now that they disapprove of what has been going on for a number of years.

Alan Duncan: What seems totally lost on the Secretary of State is that some sort of balancing effort is needed to ensure that people can obtain their money from other sources. On that, we hear nothing from him.

Alistair Darling: The whole thrust of my statement acknowledged that the changes were taking place and made it clear that there would be financial support for the Post Office amounting to 1.7 billion between now and 2011, recognising that the post office network had lost business.
	This is the difference between our approach and the Tory approach. We recognise that profound changes are taking place in post office business and are prepared to provide financial support to enable the Post Office to adapt to that, but we also recogniseas do many others, including the National Federation of SubPostmastersthat the present network, at 14,500, is unsustainable. We are proposing a reduction of about 2,500, which would still leave the Post Office with a network greater than that of all British banks.

Robert Smith: The Secretary of State speaks of a reduction of 2,500, which will concern all who are served by those post offices. In his document, however, that figure relates to a limit on the amount of compensation that he will give to Royal Mail. The access criteria do not enable our constituents to understand how their post offices will be affected, because there is no definition of remote areas, and the document does not specify the rural area to which the 95 per cent. figure applies. Does his model provide for a network of 12,000 sub-post offices to be maintained under those criteria?

Alistair Darling: As we said in our consultation document and as I said in my statement, that is our intention. Any Government must put a cap on the amount of compensation that they can pay. When the consultation period ends and we reach our conclusions, the Post Office will look at its network in different parts of the country, come up with proposals andthis is an important pointtry to manage the situation to ensure that there are post offices that meet the access criteria. We must not allow a situation to evolve in which people simply sell-up their businesses. It is important to bear in mind that most such businesses are owned by private individuals; they are not Government-owned. In areas such as that which the hon. Gentleman represents we do not want situations to arise in which people retire or sell-up their businesses and there is no longer a post office.
	We must ensure that we manage the system properly so that there is a coherent national network. That will not happen if we return to the approach that the Conservatives adopted in the 1980s and 1990s, when there simply was no planning and the situation was allowed to run unchecked.

Mark Pritchard: With respect, the Secretary of State's rationale appears to me to be perverse. He is trying to justify the massive cull of post offices on the basis that it is an organised cull rather than a disorganised one, even though the former will take place at three times the rate of the latter.
	What would the Secretary of State say to sub-postmasters Mr. and Mrs. Sodhota of Edgmond, Shropshire? They are doing a marvellous job of running that village post office, and also of running another part-time post office in Lilleshall. The Secretary of State has withdrawn business such as the TV licence business and the Post Office card account business, so what would he say to them about how they should invest for their futures and that of their children, and for the futures of the villagers they serve?

Alistair Darling: I entirely agree that there are many sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses throughout the country who do a sterling job not only in carrying out their own business, but often above and beyond that in providing other services and forms of support.
	I will discuss the Post Office card account shortly. I have said that we need to replace it, and that is why we want to put in place a new contract from 2010. The decision on the licence fee was taken by the BBC. It did not take it because there was a lack of network; it explicitly stated at the time that the reason was that large cost savings would accrue to itand, like any other organisation, the BBC has to take account of costs.
	On the hon. Gentleman's general point, I have explained time and again what has been happening over the past few years. People have chosen to conduct their business in different ways, and that changing behaviour has taken a toll on the Post Office. I want to make sure that we manage that process, and that we do not just leave things to chance. We should carry on supporting the Post Office, both directly through financial support and indirectly through measures such as the POCA and encouraging the Post Office to get other business in other ways. That is the best way of making sure that we get a national network.
	It is not only me who is saying that. I have had many discussions with the federation concerned in this matter. One thing that its representatives said to me prior to my announcement was, For goodness sake, don't just walk away from this and do nothing. You've got to make sure that we have a chance of getting a coherent national network. I believe that our proposals do that.

James Paice: The Secretary of State is right that if nothing is done there will continue to be post office closures; we all understand that, of course. However, he is proposing a quantum leap in the number of closures, in the hope that that will somehow stop the process for ever and a day so that we are then stuck with what will be a new network. Instead, he should see how sustainable the current number is. He keeps saying that it is not sustainable, but he has not advanced any evidence as to why it is not sustainable. Why does he not shelve the idea of closing 2,500 and concentrate on the measures that have been put forward to enable post offices to develop their own businesses? If he does that, he will see both that the network can be viable and how it can become so, and he can then make any decisions on closures that might be necessary.

Alistair Darling: As I said in my statement, last year the post office network was losing 2 million a week; the sum is now 4 million a week. On any view, the post office network has got problems.
	Iin common, I think, with all other Membersdo not believe that we should reduce the network to the commercial size, which at present is about 4,000; it might be possible to get it to 6,000, but that would be optimistic. We have got to have a national network with sensible access criteria because there will always be people the length and breadth of the country who want or need to get their money in the post office, and the Government have a clear social obligation to ensure that the network is there.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alistair Darling: Let me deal with one point at a time.
	That is why we took the judgment that a network of the size that I propose would be sustainable, and we are prepared to support such a network. That brings me to another point that the Conservative party must face up to. We propose to fund the Post Office to the tune of 1.7 billion. That is an annual subsidy. The social payment is about 150 million. Our Eurosceptic friend has gone, but the answer to the question that he put to the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman is that, yes, one does need state aid clearance for these things, but obviously we have had that so far and I am very hopeful that we will get it again. We are prepared to make that money available.
	If anyone takes the view that what we are proposing goes too far and that there should be fewer closuresI asked my question of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton because I wanted to find out his position on closuresI say that we would then have to be prepared to find the money to make up the difference in support. As I understand it, the Conservatives' position is that they would not spend any more money on the network. The sums simply do not add up.

Colin Challen: It could be argued that anybody in this Chamber who has bought a postage stamp from a garage, sent an e-mail rather than a letter or paid a bill in some way other than at a post office is being a little hypocritical in arguing that they are defending post offices when in their personal lives they are making other choices. It is that choice that the Government are so keen on that I would like to see implemented in favour of post offices, so that every consumer has the right to purchase any Government service, TV licence or something else of that nature at a post office if they wish. That is not to force them to do it; it is simply to give them the right. Will my right hon. Friend give that choice to consumers?

Alistair Darling: As I said, the licence fee is run by the BBC, which took that decision. On pensions and benefits, I said that if people want to be able to get their money in a post office, they ought to be able to do so. I do not think that my hon. Friend was arguing otherwise, but people are free to exercise their choices, and it is not inconsistent to support the Post Office and to buy a stamp at another outlet from time to time. That is how people live their lives; they do what is convenient to them.
	I have yet to hear anybody say that we can sort this out by trying to turn the clock back so that more and more people go back to getting their benefits and pensions at the post office

David Howarth: rose

Alistair Darling: Well, maybe the Liberal Democrats think that that can be done, but I do not think so. Most people recognise that these changes have taken place, and the question is how we respond to that. Part of the response must be Government support for the network, and I have mentioned the money that the Government propose to spend over the next few years. Part of it is post office business, which I am about to return to, but as the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) has been so noisy in the past 10 minutes I shall give way to him.

David Howarth: Is the Secretary of State saying that it is now Government policy to do whatever it takes to maintain the network at around 12,000 sub-post offices, and that there will be no more proposals for cuts beyond that number? If so, that would be a new policy, and it is what people want to hear. In Cambridge, for example, we have lost a third of our sub-post offices, and the question is when the process will end. Is it the Government's policy to prevent the process from going any further?

Alistair Darling: As I said in my statement, the Government believe that a network of about 12,000 sub-post offices, with outreach support, is sustainable, and we are prepared to provide the money to make that happen. If people are arguing, as the Tories now appear to be doing, that there ought to be fewer closures, so that the subsidy, by definition, would increase, they must be clear that they would have to find the money, but that is not the Tories' position.

Michael Weir: The Secretary of State is talking again about closurewe keep hearing about the closure of post officesbut he has also talked about the haphazard nature of previous closures. In the urban regeneration programme, it seemed to be that whoever wanted to go got to go. That has left the current network dysfunctional in many areas. Is there anything in the right hon. Gentleman's proposals that would allow an overall look at the network and the opening of new post offices to rebalance the network, and not just closing more post offices?

Alistair Darling: I never thought that I would see this day, but I totally agree with what the hon. Gentleman saysthat should finish him off. The approach of leaving nature to take its course is wrong because if one or two postmasters or postmistresses in a particular area, especially a rural area, simply decided to sell up and stop trading, there would be gaps in provision unless things were organised properly. This time, the Post Office is going to examine individual areas and determine who wants to go in each areaquite a large number of postmasters and postmistresses are saying that they want to go. That might match up with what is required to bring about a more coherent network, but it might not. In circumstances in which an individual in one place wants to go while another wants to stay in business, it might be necessary to move the post office so that there is a better distribution of post offices.
	That is what the Post Office is doing in relation to Crown post offices. Some towns and villages have two post offices, although there might be the business for only one. In my constituency, during the last round of closures, it was put to me on a couple of occasions that it would have been better to have closed a different post office from that which was proposed. We propose to have a more managed process. The Post Office is considering that, and when we have reached a conclusion, I will give further details to the House. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the process must be managed.

Andrew Gwynne: I welcome what my right hon. Friend says about considering a more managed approach. However, in Denton, in my constituency, the post office franchise was with the Co-op, and when the Co-op decided to terminate the franchise, the town was left without a post office for three months. A post office then opened in a new building, but that has remained a building site for 12 months, which is completely unacceptable to my constituents. When we consider the managed approach, can we please tighten up the franchising arrangements so that the situation in Denton that my constituents have had to put up with does not occur elsewhere?

Alistair Darling: I understand the difficulties that will have been caused to my hon. Friend's constituents, but one of the problems is that the network consists of about 13,800 private businesses. Some of those businesses are run by people who carry out post office business in whole and others are run by those who carry out such business in part. When individuals take their own business and personal decisions, it can sometimes be difficult to manage things in a way in which a national organisation otherwise would. It is important that we give the Post Office not only financial support, but support through the policy that I am proposing to allow it to ensure that it can rationalise its network and get a coherent network with the right spread and the right opportunities of access.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alistair Darling: Let me answer one question at a time.
	That can be done only if we are prepared to accept that changes need to be made, although they also need to be managed.

Elliot Morley: We have not heard much from the Opposition about the fact that pressures of change have built up in recent years. However, we have an opportunity for innovation, such as through mobile post offices, which were proposed in the White Paper. In my neighbouring constituency of Brigg and Goole, the West Halton post office, which had closed, reopened with the involvement of the parish council. Parish councils, community groups, local councils and the Local Government Association can play a role, but we have not heard much about that. When such an approach was proposed for my area of north Lincolnshire by the Labour group, the Conservative council voted against the proposal.

Alistair Darling: I am surprised to hear that, given that I understood that the Conservative leader had written to all his councillors saying that they should be looking at ways to put business the Post Office's way. My hon. Friend is right. An aspect of the proposals that I set out last December was for local authorities to have a greater financial influence over support for post offices. For example, they could see whether they could provide services jointly through post offices, and so on. As for additional business, it is important to recognise that most post offices are private businesses. It is therefore open to postmasters to take on different, non-post office business, and most do.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton asked about restrictions. Some restrictions exist, basically to prevent a postmaster from taking on an activity that competes directly with other Post Office business. I can see the business rationale for that, as I shall explain. For example, the Post Office sells products such as travel insurance. That is subject to national agreements, and helps to bring people into post offices, but a difficulty would arise if someone else were to cherry pick that business, as that would undermine the coherence of the national contract.
	Moreover, since this Government opened up the postal services, a person who wants to use the post office network can go to the Post Office and try to reach a suitable agreement. If that is not possible, that person can go to the regulator

Several hon. Members: rose

Alistair Darling: I will try to give way to everyone, even though this is only a three-hour debate. I hope that we do everything possible to encourage postmasters and postmistresses to get additional business because, in the end, it is the number of people who come through the doors of post offices that will make the difference.
	Encouraging extra business is absolutely essential, and is the other half of what the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton was saying, but on its own that is not enough: there still needs to be substantial public support. We are prepared to make that support available to ensure that the network survives, but my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and his colleagues in Lincolnshire are absolutely right in what they say.
	I give way to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy), who has been very patient.

Julia Goldsworthy: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. He has spoken about the need for rational planning for the network to prevent haphazard closures, but the reality is that many temporary closures become permanent because no one will take on a business that has a big axe hanging over it. For example, the sub-postmaster at the village of Beacon in my constituency died suddenly, and no one can be found to take on the business in the current uncertain climate. As a result, the office is the subject of a change-of-use order that would turn it into a residence. The closure is supposed to be temporary, but how can the post office survive?

Alistair Darling: That is a fair point. I have published these proposals in part because I want to provide certainty, so that people who take on a business know what its prospects are. As was noted earlier, in the past the Post Office has not looked at a given area and decided which post offices were necessary to fulfil the access criteria. That is what I want to happen, and it is why I am making these proposals.

Anne Snelgrove: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I am pleased to say that all the post offices in my constituency are viable businesses that benefit the community, and my constituents want them to remain so. Will he confirm that, in future, people will be allowed to get their pensions or benefits from post offices, if that is what they choose? I have taken advantage of my local post offices' ability to supply foreign exchange and travel insurance facilities, so will he bring forward other new ideas so that those offices remain viable businesses in my community?

Alistair Darling: Yes, I can confirm that people will continue to be able to get their pensions or benefits at post offices, and we have a commitment to that end. The foreign currency exchange facility has been hugely successful for the Post Office, and we very much want to encourage new business of that type.
	I shall take interventions from those hon. Members to whom I have not yet given way, and then I shall move a conclusion, as half an hour is more than enough.

Mark Todd: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. One thing that the Post Office insists on is that sub-postmasters cannot contract to install a pay-point outlet in their businesses. That is an anachronism, and unless the Post Office as a corporate body is able to provide a sensible, transactional bid for such a contract, it is one that should end. The Post Office has repeatedly lost contracts for basic transactional business: until it gets this matter straight, it is hobbling those sub-postmasters who want the work that I have described.

Alistair Darling: They can get the Paypoint, butfor reasons that I set out earlierthey cannot use a pay point that competes with other business. If the Post Office has entered into a contract to sell travel insurance or to allow people to pay certain bills, I can see why it would not like to have a competitor sitting alongside. As I said, I am prepared to look at any proposal to enable the Post Office to get more business, but I want to avoid ending up with a situation in which its financial stability is undermined by someone who is able to cherry pick a particular bit of its business. That possibility would throw into question the viability of the rest of the Post Office network. We need to remember that much of that network is not likely to include post offices with valuable contracts; it is more likely to include those that are fairly well used.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alistair Darling: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and then conclude.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, who is very courteous. Can he tell us what public expenditure savings for Government Departments have been made from diverting business from Post Office services to banks, and how they compare with the extra subsidy, losses and borrowings needed by the Post Office on account of the lost business?

Alistair Darling: I would want to give the right hon. Gentleman an entirely accurate picture, so I shall write to him about it. He may concede, however, that as long as I have heard him in the Chamber, he has been one of the most severe critics of Governmentshis as well as ourswho spend too much. As I said at the start, successive Governments have rightly been under pressure to cut their administrative costs. Part of the administrative costs of the Department for Work and Pensions, where I was the Secretary of State for four years, related to benefit payments. It seems to me that if people choose to get their pensions paid into a bank account, the Government should facilitate that rather than stand in the way. The right hon. Gentleman will knowthe James review is relevantthat at the last election, the Conservative Opposition banked those savings. Somehow to suggest that the Conservatives would not have made that change or would reverse the process is slightly disingenuous.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose

Alistair Darling: I have been more than generous in giving way and I recall that Mr. Speaker said something about over-long speeches from Front Benchers, so in mitigation, it is not all my fault.
	As I said at the outset, any decision about the Post Office that involves closures is difficult and I recognise that it will be controversial, but I would be failing in my dutyand the Government would be failing in theirsif I did not recognise that, in the face of quite profound changes that have meant that the Post Office has lost many customers coming in through the front door, we have to take action to ensure that there is a national network of post offices. I am firmly committed, as are the Government, to maintaining such a national network and we have put substantial sums into the Post Officenot just Royal Mailto ensure that we do. Over the next five years, 1.7 billion will be investeda very significant level of support.
	We must also recognise the duty to do all we can to help individual postmasters and postmistresses up and down the country. I firmly believe that unless we are prepared to face up to the difficulties, we are not properly supporting the Post Office, but simply posturing. It is important to do everything we can to support the Post Office, which is why I urge the House to support our amendment.

Susan Kramer: There seems to be a real difference between Members who see the Post Office as a nostalgic and traditional network that is fading and should be allowed to fade gracefully, and those who believe that there is a vibrant future and very significant role for the network. For older people in my constituency, who still look to the Post Office for their pensions and to pay their bills, the key advantage is that they can do so safely with a known postmaster and postmistress who make them feel secure and can help them access the services that they need.
	When I talked in 2004 to one my constituents, who was 80, she told me that the local post office was her independence. She lives in Ham, my most deprived ward, where there is now no longer a single sub-post office. My constituent's independence has gone, so she has to depend on the charity of neighbours to access many of the services that she needs.
	When the post office in rural communities disappears, the viability of the village or community itself is put at risk.

Roger Williams: Much of the debate has focused on post offices as stand-alone businesses, but most post offices are well integrated with other businesses in their community. Will the Government take that into account when they analyse the results of their consultation? That symbiotic relationship is vital to cover the overheads of a business that might be the only one left in a community.

Susan Kramer: My hon. Friend makes a significant point. Often the post office business is that marginal difference between the village shop staying open and it closing. It is important to consider the total package, but when I look at the new access criteria, as they have been described, I do not see that element being considered in the design of the new future post office network.
	I come from an urban background: I am a Londoner and I represent an outer London constituency. Financial deprivation is an extremely significant issue. The banking network has little interest in those who are financially excluded or who live on the financial margins, but they constitute the perfect community to be served by post offices. For people who need access to financial services, post offices, perhaps in co-operation with credit unions and others, offer a way in which to access those services and to change their life opportunities. The needs of such people will never be met by the banks, which will deal with them only when dragged, kicking and screaming, by Government regulation. That is not an enthusiastic and positive way of generating the new services that such people need.

Tim Farron: My hon. Friend points out that the access criteria are worth dwelling on. The Secretary of State rightly pointed out that we are discussing only about 14,000 individual businesses. If we are to close 2,500 of them very quickly, the temptation must be to be opportunistic and carry out the easiest closures. An example can be found in Staveley, a large village in my constituency, where the sub-postmistress wants to leave and sell the business. That would be an easy closure if one were being opportunistic, but it would be wrong to do it because there is clearly a massive village community to be served. Although the access criteria may well be carefully drawn up, when such a vast swathe of post offices are to be closed in one go

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Susan Kramer: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not finished yet. I just want to say to the House that time for the debate is limited and overlong interventions are not helpful. We want exchanges, but they must be kept as brief as possible.

Susan Kramer: My hon. Friend's point, although lengthy, is entirely accurate, and I shall let it stand on its own.
	For members of busy working familiesI speak as one who played that role for many yearswho cannot receive packages at home, the post office has huge potential if packages can be delivered to the post office and if people have one place to go to access a range of other servicesfor example, local council services, or to purchase financial products. My point is that a positive view can be taken of post offices and their huge potential, but that is not what I see Ministers doing.

Geraldine Smith: I understand that the Liberal Democrats want to privatise Royal Mail to help to maintain the network of sub-post offices, but what happens when the money from that one-off receipt runs out?

Susan Kramer: Because it is the best way, I have left that until last, but I shall deal with that proposal, which offers a viable future for both Royal Mail and the post office network.
	Let us consider the value of post offices. The New Economics Foundation has demonstrated that each post office saves local businesses approximately 270,000 per annum, and that, as it circulates, every 10 of income earned by a post office generates 16.20 for the local economy. That symbiosis that others have mentioned is key and must be central to the planning of the post office network.
	All organisations need to change to meet the times, but if we started to think of the post office as having potential rather than as a fading organisation, the whole psychology would change.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Some of my sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses will be profoundly depressed by this debate, because it has concentrated entirely on negative thinking. There ought to be positive thinking. Each sub-postmaster and sub-postmistress should be free to compete with their neighbours in offering a greater range of goods and services. The other day one of my constituents told me that they could buy their television licence in their local pub but not in their local post office. The local post office would like to sell the licences but is not allowed to do so.

Susan Kramer: I very much welcome positive comments such as those that the hon. Gentleman has just made.
	The potential of the post office will be squandered unless three things happen. The first is that we must stop further wholesale closure of sub-post office branches; indeed, a number of them need to be reopened.

Bill Wiggin: Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems is the way in which some of the closures took place? The treatment of Leominster post office in my constituency, which was downgraded, was disgraceful. Today, I received a telephone call from Mrs. Turner complaining about the length of the queues, so there is clearly no shortage of demand. Her problem was that she wanted to post a parcel, and that could not be done anywhere else.

Susan Kramer: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman's experience is not unfamiliar.
	The business restrictions on the network have been discussed. Some were imposed by Post Office Ltd, but some were imposed by the Royal Mail Group in the interests of the other arm of the organisation. The opportunity with the greatest potentialusing post offices as a receiving hub for parcels, whether from DHL, Federal Express, TNT or anyone else delivering mail and packagesis being denied post offices by the Royal Mail family, so the second thing that must be done is to lift those restrictions. Thirdly, there must be significant investment in the system and the network, to make new businesses a reality rather than a myth.
	Today, I have listened to both the Government and the Tories, but I have heard no realistic plans to deliver those goals. The Government have closed 4,000 branches and even the Secretary of State admits that it was not part of a properly organised master plan; certainly, in urban areas, as other Members have pointed out, closures depended on who was elderly and wanted to retire and who was so disillusioned by the threats that they decided they might as well get out while the going was good. Significant buy-out money was offered40,000 was a typical sum in my area. The results were completely haphazard.

John Barrett: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that some of the most profitable and viable businesses are being closed? The busiest post office in my constituency, in the South Gyle shopping centre, was closed in the last round of closures, so no post office is safe.

Susan Kramer: My hon. Friend is right. Many of the post offices that were closed were among the busiest. I have seen that in my constituency, too.
	The Secretary of State's assurances about a coherent plan for the future of post offices seemed to apply only to rural areas, but they should be just as true for urban areas, where access can be exceedingly difficult. In one of my wards, the best access to the nearest post office would require customers to walk on water across the Thames, which Post Office Counters did not realise when it closed the post office.

Colin Challen: I am confused by what I have heard from Members on both Opposition Benches. Are they arguing that the post office network should have complete commercial freedom? I think that is the hon. Lady's argument and it certainly seems to be the argument the Conservatives are making. If so, why should the network receive a penny piece of Government finance?

Susan Kramer: I remain committed to keeping Post Office Counters as a public service, and so does my party. Obviously, there is an argument for subsidy for social access reasons, but that would have to be in partnership with an effort to release the commercial and economic potential of post offices. If the Government cannot marry those two elements, they are missing out on the great opportunities that we face today. Many groups in the voluntary sector manage to balance a very commercial operation with a public service operation, and that is an entirely viable future for Post Office Counters. The withdrawal of Government business from the Post Office has been critical.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Secretary of State made it clear, from a sedentary position, that his comprehensive plan would apply to urban areas, too. Earlier, he told the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who is no longer in the Chamber, that under the plan, the opening of new post offices would be considered, if the network was too degraded in some areas. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) accept that proposed closures, such as that of the Crown post office in Newton Abbot, should be suspended until the comprehensive plan is in place, and until we can be sure whether Royal Mail is making the right decision?

Susan Kramer: We always seem to be in a long pending period, and that is a time when a great deal of damage can occur to the post office network. It is important that such periods are accompanied by some kind of moratorium on the chain of closures.
	Some 60 per cent. of post offices' business used to come from the Government, but that will soon be down to 10 per cent. The biggest harm to post offices came from DWP's threat to end the Post Office card account in 2010I say threat, but it will effectively do it. I understand that there will be a replacement; that was stated in a very recent announcement. The Secretary of State will be conscious that previous announcementsI remember them from my time as a member of the Select Committee on the Treasurywere all geared towards ending the Post Office card account in 2010. That contract was worth 150 million a year to the Post Office, and the card is used by 4.5 million people. Anyone who has tried to apply for one, and has gone through the processes involved, knows that one has to be really determined to get a card. It is not easy to do; a person has to really want it, as it has not been marketed. People have had to seek it out.
	A replacement card is promised, and that is welcome, but does the Secretary of State recognise the damage that is already done? When I talk with my local postmasters, the one issue that they raise time and again is the number of people who no longer come in, having walked in with the letter that they received from the Department for Work and Pensions, which seemed to instruct them to open a bank account. That has been the consequence, and there has already been huge damage to the system.

Graham Stuart: Is it the hon. Lady's understanding that what is proposed as a continuation of the Post Office card account will not necessarily be any such thing? If the contract is put out to tender, might not the service be provided through post offices? If so, would it not mean that people might be coming to incorrect conclusions?

Susan Kramer: I am concerned that the Government have not given us stronger assurances of the overwhelming likelihood of the Post Office winning the tender. Frankly, I do not think that anybody can guarantee that in a fair tender process. We would all like to hear what the contingency plan is, in case the Post Office is not successful in the tender. It has lost tender after tender because it has not been sure of its future, and because it has not been organised in a way that allows it to offer the most efficient and effective service available. The loss of the BBC licence fee service is a good example of that. The Post Office was not able to compete, in part because of the network uncertainty, and in part because of the many overhanging difficulties that mean that it cannot put together the most efficient, competitive tender.

Peter Bone: Did not correct the original Post Office card account contract require a migration from the Post Office to banks? If that is included in the next contract, it will make matters even worse.

Susan Kramer: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I tried to explain earlier, the thrust of the Government's approach is to wind down the post office network. They want to help an old dinosaur fade out, instead of seeking a new opportunity and seeing a phoenix that can rise from the ashes. The latter attitude must prevail in future, as the former is a self-fulfilling prophecy that will result in the loss of the network.
	May I challenge the Government's claims about the huge investment that they have made in post offices and the implication that that money is intended for modernisation? They put 1.7 billion into the network, 500 million of which was spent on the botched and incredibly late Horizon IT project. Obviously, that system has value, but one can argue that a significant portion of the 500 million was not spent effectively. Some 210 million was spent achieving closure, which certainly was not an investment in the future. Some 900 million was spent over six years on social network payments, which, I accept, provide a tremendous benefit. However, they are designed to keep the system ticking overthey are not designed to push for change or development, or to create new opportunities and drive forward business development.
	The amount that has genuinely been spent on modernisationsales, retail, competition and so onis a modest 55 million, which has been used to focus on new business opportunities for post offices, rather than keeping the old system hanging on from day to day. We have been promised more investment, and I shall be fascinated to hear how the new 1.7 billion investment will be spent. How much will be targeted on closures, and how much will be used to develop new business? Many of the decisions and the presentation of arguments that would help to end the uncertainty for postmasters and sub-postmasters have been delayed, because the Government cannot decide how to develop their relationship with Royal Mail and whether to enter into an employee share scheme. Presumably, we have to wait until the Chancellor has had an opportunity to challenge for the leadership, as he needs support from Labour Members who are not keen on employee share ownership. It is extremely unfair that changes to such a fragile system should be pending while we await the outcome of those internal changes.

Jim Sheridan: The hon. Lady's is cynical about the 1.7 billion investment in post offices, but a great deal of manufacturing has gone to the wall and people have lost their jobs. If 1.7 billion was offered to people in the manufacturing industry, they would bite off the Government's hand to obtain it. What is the difference between those people losing their jobs and the position of post office workers?

Susan Kramer: I do not support the hon. Gentleman's view that the post office network is the equivalent of a commercial service. My party believes that it offers a very different service, with a strong social component. Hon. Members have talked about the symbiosis between post offices and the viability of communities, and that key factor must be acknowledged in the handling of finances.
	The Conservatives have got off scot-free. A total of 3,500 branch closures is not as bad as the total under the Labour Government but, my God, it is the difference between bad and worse. There has been much talk of unshackling, but there has not been any discussion of where the money for new development will come from. Enough Tories have engaged in business for them to realise that investment is a necessary part of change and new opportunity. The Tories called for this debate, so they should have some answers. Will they sell all or part of the Royal Mail Group? Will they keep Post Office Counters, Post Office Ltd and Royal Mail together? Will they make structural ownership changes?

Graham Stuart: rose

Susan Kramer: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me.

Graham Stuart: As a Conservative Member with a business background, I believe that the hon. Lady is mistaken about the post office network, which is predominantly run by owner-proprietors, who have access to capital for investment if they can make a commercial case and there is a stable environment in which financial backers can invest for profit. Does she agree with Conservatives that the Government have not provided that stability? If people are not sure that they will receive income from the Post Office card account or be given greater freedom, that investment will not be made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of using up the time that he might otherwise wish to occupy if he caught my eye.

Susan Kramer: You will be glad to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am coming to the final part of my remarks.
	I am now slightly worried about the business skills. Of course, uncertainty and risk are critical in any kind of business environment, but capital and investment are also critical for training, marketing and all the other development that will be necessary if we are to take the post office network from where it is today to the vision that we have of it in the future.

John Leech: Does my hon. Friend agree that a level playing field is necessary as well? When I needed to renew my car tax, I realised that I could do so on the internet without producing any insurance document, but if I went to the post office I would still have to provide an insurance document. Surely there should be a level playing field for the post office and the internet.

Susan Kramer: My hon. Friend points out an anachronism of which I was not aware.
	There is good news, as one party at least has put together a coherent plan that offers a future for the post office networka comprehensive policy that deals with Royal Mail and the Post Office. First, the two must be separated. They are not the same business and there is no reason that they have to ride in tandem. The post office network belongs permanently within the public sector. It needs to be free to develop its business without being trammelled by Royal Mail and Royal Mail's own and rather different objectives.
	We propose that, having made that separation, 25 per cent. of Royal Mail goes into an employee trust so that shares are effectively owned by the employees to provide the necessary incentives; 25 per cent. remains in public hands with Royal Mail, because with its universal distribution requirement there is a public service element, though it is a relatively small one; and 45 per cent. of the shares are sold on the open market. That yields about 2 billion in addition to the subsidy programmes that the Government have suggested, to put into an endowment to rebuild the network. That initial money will allow training, development and marketing to be put in place and will allow the network to be rebuilt.

Graham Stuart: Tosh!

Susan Kramer: The hon. Gentleman may say Tosh, but put that offer in front sub-postmasters and postmistresses, and in front of communities that know that their post office is under threat or declining, and the response will be very different. People can see the future and can see that our proposal works.
	In the last debate on the Post Office, the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Competition Policy, who has not yet had an opportunity to speak, used a quote from a disillusioned postmistress writing in the Somerset newspaper, the  Western Daily Press, which I think accurately summed up the Government's attitude towards post offices. He said that
	people do not use the post office, they only think they need one![ Official Report, 16 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 614.]
	We have heard variants of that echoed over and over.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being so generous in giving way. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who previously spoke for the Liberals on the matter, used the same tactic of attributing that quote to me. It was not a quote from me. It was a quote from a sub-postmistress, which I was using to explain to people who did not know that even sub-postmistresses, not just the Government, were saying that there was a problem with the network.

Susan Kramer: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I was careful to get the attribution correct, as he heard. The selection of the quote is significant, because it has been echoed time and again today. It comes back to my original point. Whether or not the Post Office has a future will depend on whether the Government believe in a viable and thriving post office network that can contribute to all kinds of social cohesion, but which also has a commercial future. If they take that approach, they will look at the plan that we have recommended and see that there is a way forwarda way to guarantee the future by keeping the social role that the post office network plays while providing it with the necessary investment. I recommend that plan not only to the Government but to the Tory Opposition, whom I hope will come up with a final strategy of their own at some point; it is sad that they did not do so today.

Shona McIsaac: I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer). Given her lengthy speech, it is somewhat surprising that the Liberal Democrats have not tabled an amendment to the motion. Perhaps that is because they are a bit coy about their policy, which includes privatising Royal Mail, and do not want it published in the Order Paper.

Geraldine Smith: The Liberals usually like popular policies, and I do not think that they will find that privatising Royal Mail is very popular with the general public.

Shona McIsaac: I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

Susan Kramer: Liberal Democrats like policies that work; sometimes they happen to be popular and sometimes they do not. We have always been willing to choose the hard road when necessary. The reason why there is no amendment on the Order Paper is that in October we had our own Opposition day debate and set out our proposals in great detail. There seemed no need to weary the House with yet another amendment that was not going to be selected.

Shona McIsaac: It is great that the Liberal Democrats are not going to weary the House, because they do that far too much already, but that is a feeble excuse for not putting their policies and thoughts on to the Order Paper today.
	I was not originally going to take part in this debate [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) should be very careful, because if he carries on jeering and cheering like that I will retaliate by using up all the time available and preventing anybody else from getting called.  [ Interruption. ] Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene?

David Howarth: Not yet.

Shona McIsaac: Good, because I would not have let him anyway.
	The Conservative opening speech was such a misrepresentation of the Government's proposals that I felt that I had to take part in the debate to try to bring a bit of balance to a very important subject. I am sure that all Members in the Chamber recognise the importance of the post office network. We all support our own local sub-post offices and Crown offices, whether in rural or inner-city areas. Wherever we are, up and down the country, we all recognise that sub-post offices, in particular, are the lifeblood of communities.

John Leech: Does that mean that the hon. Lady will support keeping all the post offices in her constituency open but is happy for 2,500 to close elsewhere?

Shona McIsaac: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a wee bit of time, I will explain my thoughts on these matters, and then he can reach his own conclusions.
	In spite of the way in which the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have portrayed the Government's position, the reality is somewhat more complex. We have heard a lot today about how people's spending habits have changed over the years. This Christmas, I am sure that people did more shopping on the internet than ever. That is not necessarily bad because, when I visited my local sorting office at Christmas, I was told that the number of packages that internet shopping generated was valuable.
	Not only changing spending habits have had an impact on our post office network. Banking habits have also changed. One does not have to go back many years to the time when few women had bank accounts; hence many payments, especially child benefit, were made through order books. It was not done because people especially wanted that but in recognition of the fact that many women did not have bank accounts. That also applied to elderly people. As the years have passed, more and more people have bank accounts. People who retire now are more than likely to have a bank account, whereas that was unlikely several decades ago.

Graham Stuart: I wonder what the hon. Lady's constituents will make of her speech. She represents a rural constituency that is similar to mine, and hearing their Member of Parliament act as an apologist for the Government's post office closures and provide every excuse for their shutting down thousands of post offices throughout the country, including in her constituency, will go down badly with her constituents, who would expect her to fight for them, not try to excuse the Government's mismanagement.

Shona McIsaac: I shall not thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Given that he supported my private Member's Bill on the Humber bridge, I expected better of a Member from north of the River Humber. I do not know whether he has paid the toll on the Humber bridge to travel south into my constituency, but it is not entirely rural. Indeed, Grimsby and Cleethorpes are the largest urban areas in that part of the east of England. However, the constituency has a rural hinterland and I care passionately about the rural network and also about what anywhere else would be deemed an inner-city network in deprived urban electoral wards.
	Let me consider some of the concerns that sub-postmasters and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters have expressed to me. Some of them have already been mentioned and I should like the Government to consider discussing them with the Post Office. They include Paypoint. The Secretary of State said that there was a problem about competition that involved Paypoint. Paypoint wants more outlets, but because of the notion that there will be competition, a sub-postmaster who would like a Paypoint machine cannot have one because it is a rival product. The Secretary of State mentioned travel insurance, but if Paypoint provided, for example, only TV licences, I do not understand why that would constitute a rival product. I should therefore like a little more explanation of the restriction on Paypoint. In parts of the rural hinterland of my constituency, the post office remains the best place to pay bills and people have to travel further to reach the nearest Paypoint machine. That should be tackled.
	Constituents mentioned paying British Telecom bills and some claimed that they can no longer pay them at the post office. People can do that, but if one examines the section on how to pay at the back of BT bills, it says nothing about paying at the post office. That is not something that the Government have done. BT itself says that paying bills at the post office is the most expensive way of paying them, so it has taken a commercial decision on the matter. It has not stopped people paying in this way, but it is no longer promoting it.
	We need to bear in mind the fact that commercial decisions are often involved, and that this is not just about the Government. If BT is saying that this method of payment is too costly, the Post Office needs to start looking at what it is charging such organisations to collect these payments. Perhaps it is not demonstrating as much business sense as it should, if it is driving away custom. In a sense, that is what happened with the payment of television licence fees. The BBC said that collecting those payments through the Post Office was very expensive. Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members have been pointing the finger of blame at the Government in today's debate, but things are never that simple or straightforward. There are many other issues involved. If we are to have a thriving network, the Post Office will need to examine its charging structures.

Richard Younger-Ross: I accept the tenet that not everything can be laid at the door of the Government, and that the Post Office is in part at fault for some of the problems that it faces. For example, Newton Abbot Crown post office is to close shortly, but the Post Office it is not even able to say whether that office is making a profit or a loss. Its inability to put a figure on this demonstrates its lack of financial competence. Does the hon. Lady agree that such post offices should not close because of the inability of the Post Office to understand its position, at least until the Government's review has been completed?

Shona McIsaac: It would be way beyond my pay grade to comment on the future of post offices in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
	People have expressed concern to me about the future of the post offices in their area, but I occasionally hear another side of the argumentif not exactly the flip-side of the coinwhich does not often get mentioned. An example was something that a resident of my constituency told me recently. They wanted to send a letter by recorded delivery and went to their local village sub-post office. Unfortunately, it was shut that day, so they went to the shop in the next village. Unfortunately, the sub-post office in the shop was also closed that day, so they had to make quite a lengthy journey to the nearest town. This was not at some obscure time; it was in the middle of the working week. The reason for this happening is that the nature of some of the sub-post offices' contracts means that they are not open at certain times of day. We need to look at the issue of opening hours.
	I work closely with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and I am very conscious of the issues relating to working hours. There should be much more flexibility for the opening hours of sub-post offices and Crown offices. They often do not reflect modern working practices, in that they are open when a lot of people are at work. Indeed, the main Crown office in the centre of Cleethorpes is probably one of the few that is open on Sundays, when it does excellent business. We need to examine those issues as well.

Mark Williams: I do not see how the person involved in the example that the hon. Lady mentioned could have the luxury of travelling from village to village. Public transport is also an important dimension of this issue, but not everyone has the capacity to have a car of their own. Nor does everyone have the capacity to access public transport. I represent 147 villages and hamlets, so public transport is a big issue in my area. That conspires against the thesis that she put forward.

Shona McIsaac: I shall not try the patience of the Chair by straying into a discussion on public transport. Suffice it to say that accessibility is a crucial issue as well.
	Recently, I met members of the National Federation of SubPostmasters from my area, when they came down to lobby Parliament.  [Interruption.] I thought hon. Members were trying to intervene, but they are not. I am intrigued, because I do not recall any Conservative or Liberal Democrat Front-Bencher mentioning meeting members or delegations from their areas when they came down to Parliament, but given the distances involved, I was pleased to be able to meet 23 members from South Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) and for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and I, as well as others, had a constructive meeting with those people from our area, and some of them told us that they were not all totally opposed to the idea that there had to be closures. Closures will always be controversial, but some of those people said that they want to retire and sell their businesses. However, they want that to be managed properly. When the Government made their statement in December, and following that meeting, those members felt that what the Government said about the future of the network was very good and positive. There are those who want to retire and sell up. Property prices have increased, so people can realise their property assets and retire. That does happen.
	Selling up could leave a gap in provision. A lot of people have been running sub-post offices for many years, which has skewed the age profile to the top of the range. Many of those people are thinking of retiring. They think that the package is good, and if they want to retire they can do so. Now, we have back-up. In the past, we would not know whether a gap in provision in a village would be filled by another sub-post office, but, due to what the Government are saying, that would now be carefully analysed. If an area was left without a post office, we would look at bringing in another one. That is absolutely vital for the future.

Dawn Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for that apt description of some postmasters who want to retire. When post offices are closing, should not the Opposition be a little more responsible in their campaigning with regard to their terminology, language and approach? Should they not try to work with the Government to ensure that there are no gaps in provision for specific areas?

Shona McIsaac: I certainly think that the difference between what the previous Government did and what we are suggesting as the way forward for the future is the social aspect of the post office in communities. We will try to ensure that we have that coverage nation wide in the network. That is very welcome. I hope that the Conservative party will support that aspect of the proposals.
	I am going to mention another point as regards the Post Office card account. Of all the issues raised in my postbag, that came up the most. People were very concerned about the possibility of the Post Office card account ending. The announcement that there would be a replacement card account was therefore welcome, and it has eased many of my constituents' fears.
	I would like the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider ways of linking in credit unions to the future replacement for the card account. The areas in my constituency with high post office usage are often those with fairly high levels of deprivation. There are still people in those areas who do not have access to bank accounts because of their credit ratings, and the North East Lincolnshire Credit Union is working to keep those people away from loan sharks. Links with credit unions therefore have immense potential for tackling financial and social exclusion in the future.
	In northern Lincolnshire, my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe, for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I have always worked closely with our post office network. We heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe that my parliamentary neighbour and regional Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, worked with one of his parish councils to have a sub-post office reopened. That shows how we can work together for the future of the network.
	I was astonished, however, by the support from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) for the idea that more local council services could be delivered via the sub-post office network. Perhaps he might like to have a word with his Tory colleagues on North Lincolnshire council. While my neighbouring MPs have worked with our Labour colleagues on the council, his colleagues voted against extending the community use of sub-post offices and the Local Government Association position, in complete contradiction to the policy he espoused today. That is just another example of today's Tories saying one thing and doing another.

Jeremy Wright: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) for leaving a little time for the rest of us. I shall try to use as little of it as I can. I want to speak about who is to blame for the situation in which we find ourselves, who suffers as a result and what might be done about it.
	The Government talk a great deal about choice and the importance of offering people choice. Of course, using the local post office to collect one's pension or benefit payments is, or was, a choice. It might not be the most efficient choice available to an individual, and certainly not the most convenient choice for the Government, but that is not a good reason to prevent people from making it. The Government, with their considerable resources, could have made the case to all those affected as to why it would be better, more sensible and more beneficial for them to have their benefits or pension paid into a bank account, while leaving them the option to do something else. But that is not what happened. The Government put pressure on all those individuals to do what the Government wanted. They must therefore accept some responsibility for what is happening to the post office network now. By removing that choice, they have effectively removed a large part of the post office network's income.
	I accept that other pressures, some of which have been mentioned, have been exerted on the profitability of small post offices. Of course, the use and prevalence of e-mail has an effect, and the existence of an online stamp system will have even more of an effect. Ministers cannot, however, escape significant responsibility for loss of post office income through the removal of Government businesslast year, in the order of 168 million. Last month, in a spectacular display of adding insult to injury, the Prime Minister said that the closure of post offices would be the fault of customers for not using the services that his own Government had taken away.
	We now face plans to reduce the post office network again, significantly, and we know where the axe will fall. It will fall on communities where shops and services have already gone, and where the post office may well be all that is left. Those communities could be rural or, as has been observed, they could be urban. Indeed, postmasters and postmistresses in deprived urban areas are among the most pessimistic about their future. However, I want to focus for a moment on the rural communities that I represent.
	The Government talk a great deal about communities. They even have a Department for communities nowadays. But communities rarely means rural communities. It rarely means villages where the post office is not just the only shop, but often the only point of social contact for many elderly and vulnerable people. It is sometimes the only reason for them to leave the house, and gives them the only opportunity of human contact. Sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses provide not just stamps and benefit payments, but a smile or a friendly inquiry. It is not surprising that 98 per cent. of those consulted in a recent survey by Age Concern regarded post offices as a lifeline.
	The Government have argued that life is changing and we must change with it. That argument is part of their justification for what is happening, but there is a difficulty with it.

Jim Sheridan: The hon. Gentleman is making the case that post offices are vital to the community, which is absolutely true, but does he agree that local shops are also vital to the community? A recent report suggested that literally thousands of local shops would close in the next five years. Will we be subsidising those as well?

Jeremy Wright: I agree that local shops are important, but my point is that there are communities in our country where all the shops have gone. The post office is all that is left, and it is where people go not just for commercial purposes but for a degree of social interaction. The situation that the hon. Gentleman describes is regrettable, and I should have thought that the worst thing we could do would be to make it worse. That is why we are saying that the post office network needs to be sustained.
	As I was saying, the Government argue that life is changing and we must change with it. The problem with their argument is that because of some of those changes in lifestyle, the post office network has become even more important in some of the communities that I am describing. More people now live alone, particularly the elderly. They may be distant from their families, who may have moved awayespecially in rural areas, where the movement of younger family members has been caused by the increased cost of living in those areas. The sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress may be the only person who notices that something is wrong when someone does not come in to collect a benefit or pension. The decisions that are being made have commercial implications, but they also have social implications, and we must bear those in mind.

Mark Williams: What the hon. Gentleman is describing is certainly recognised in my constituency. Is he satisfied that the consultation on which the Government have embarked deals adequately with that broader picture, the social dimension that he is describing?

Jeremy Wright: No, I am not, and I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. I do not believe that what the Government are doing will compensate for that loss. They must recognise that they cannot simply regard the post office network as a commercial entity; they must also regard it as a social entity, and they must take account of what will be lost in social terms if village and urban post offices disappear.
	What can be done? I think that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) was somewhat unfair in saying that no positive ideas had been advanced on either side of the House. It seems to me that positive ideas have been advanced, and I give the Government a degree of credit for at least mentioning some of the things that might be done. However, I remain sceptical about their willingness to pursue some of those positive ideas.
	There is certainly potential and opportunity for post offices to deliver more local and central Government services. If this Government have achieved anything in the field of job creation, they have surely achieved a huge growth in the marketplace for those who can help us to navigate the labyrinth of Government benefits and services that now exist.
	Post offices are already a trusted source of advice, information and help on a variety of day-to-day needs. They are ideal candidates for having that role extended and doing more of such work. For example, the take-up of pension credit is inadequate, and post offices are the kinds of places where we can increase that take-up and give the necessary advice and help. However, they will be able to do that only if they are still in business. If we want them to perform such functions, there is simply no value in the Government pursuing a wholesale closure programmethey have substantially brought that about by their own actionsand in then being worried and disturbed to find that no one is available to deliver the good ideas that Members in all parts of the House are putting forward.
	I hope that the Minister will take account of the genuine concerns that have been expressed by Members in all parts of the House in respect of the value that the post office network provides not only commercially but socially, and that the Government will desist from doing any more damage to communities that they have done quite enough damage to already.

Graham Stuart: This summer, I had the pleasure of spending several days cycling around my constituency. I went from village to village, and the post office was, of course, the heart of the community in those villages. As I travelled along the coast to places such as Aldbrough, Mappleton and down to Withernsea, time and again people told me of the importance of the post office to their way of life and their local community.
	Such small rural villages have had to put up with a lot since 1997. Community hospital facilities have either been closed or had services heavily reduced. Bus services are inadequate, inconveniencing the elderly and those without transport. Farmers' incomes have collapsed, and the single farm payment scheme has descended into chaos due to Government mismanagement. Rural areas feel neglected and question the Government's understanding of the countryside. Post office closures are, therefore, about as welcome as the Foreign Secretary at a Young Farmers dinner.
	It is difficult to overstate the importance of the post office to small, remote towns and villages. The poor, the old and the ill particularly depend on it for a wide range of services. As Members in all parts of the House have often said, sub-postmasters act as a focal point for the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) mentioned an Age Concern report that showed that most elderly people in rural areas regard the post office as a lifeline. That report also found that 56 per cent.more than halfof such people thought that post office closures would lead to them being isolated. The current Government have already been the author of 4,000 such closures at three times the previous rate, and they are now proposing 2,500 even more swiftly than before.
	The Government's mismanagement of the post office network has had a devastating impact on such communities. In my constituency, eight post office branches have been lost since 1999, and following the Secretary of State's announcement of last month a further six could soon be shutting their doors.
	Last year, the sub-postmaster of Burstwick post office in my constituency announced that he would resign his post. The reason was that he was losing money and had to do a second job in order to subsidise his post office branch. He said that he was tired of swimming against the tide and predicted that many more post offices would close in rural areas if the Government carried on their policy of wilful neglect.
	Residents in Burstwick have now been told that they will have to visit a post office several miles away in a nearby village. That might be fine for a young couple with two cars parked in their drive, but for the elderly, who often live alone and have little or no access to transport, it is asking too much. Such examples are common and are doing untold damage to the social fabric of this country, especially in rural areas.
	The situation is likely to get worse. Sub-postmasters are voting with their feet. More and more of them are either going out of business or cutting their losses and leaving the profession entirely. When questioned in a recent MORI survey, 39 per cent. said that they could see no future whatsoever for their businesses. It is not hard to understand why. The average salary for a sub-postmaster is now only 1,000 a montha fall of 6 per cent. since 2004.
	During the summer, I wrote to every sub-postmaster in my constituency. Every respondent told me that it had become harder for sub-post offices to survive since the Government came to power, and 94 per cent. said that the Government had failed to support rural post offices. One went so far as to say that Ministers had done everything that they possibly could to destroy the post office network. More and more sub-postmasters are facing the same dilemma.
	Try as they might, Ministers will not escape the blame for this crisis; it has taken place on their watch. In his statement to the House last month, the Secretary of State blamed everyone and everything for the current situation, but he categorically failed to mention the ruthless and persistent removal of Government business from the network, a point that was picked up by Labour Members. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said that it was a pity that the Secretary of State did not mention that the Government were taking business away from the Post Office. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) greeted the statement by saying that it was very disappointing. The hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) said:
	Given my right hon. Friend's statement...the future for stand-alone dedicated post office branches is bleak.[ Official Report, 14 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 1039.]
	That is the real understanding of the situation, even on the Labour Benches, where Members are not taken in by Front-Bench spin.
	Last year, the Government provided 150 million to the network through the social network subsidy, but in the same year they took 165 million out of the network in post office business. Five years ago, according to Adam Crozier, 60 per cent. of post office revenue came from Government business. In two years, that figure will be down to 10 per cent., yet the Secretary of State insults sub-postmasters and this House repeatedly by maintaining that it is nothing but changing circumstances. He says, It's the internet. It is not; it is the way in which the Government have systematically withdrawn business from the network that has affected its viability. That is why closures, which were happening under the Conservatives, have trebled under this Government.

Jim Sheridan: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House the change in the ethos and thinking of the Conservative party? It used to argue that business must stand on its own two feet and should not be publicly subsidised. He may also recall that a Conservative Government subcontracted work to the private sector and, at times, abroad, causing 3 million people to become unemployed. What has changed since then?

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is persistent in his view. Like many Ministers and certain, although not all, Labour Members, he seems unable to see that there is a social value in what the post office network provides, and social value is what Government spending is for. We pay taxes so that the Government can provide services. That is why we have people coming in to look after the elderly in their homes. That is why successive Governments have sought to maintain a post office network.
	The question is whether the Secretary of State's statement last month provided a vision, gave stability and created a robust situation in which sub-postmasters can invest. The truth is that it did not. What we have is the continuing managed decline of the network, with the exception of the welcome announcement on the Post Office card account, an issue to which I will return. Conservative Members have campaigned long and hard for that, and it would be good to see the Government put their hand up and say that they have listened to the arguments put forward by the Conservatives and accepted that it will continue, if indeed it will.
	Does the Secretary of State support Conservative proposals to give sub-post offices greater freedoms to offer a wider range of commercial products? The answer would appear to be no. Does he envisage local authorities offering more council services through the post office? Nothing substantial has been promised. Does he want post offices to be given full access to working with carriers other than the Royal Mail? We appear not to have an answer. We have heard almost nothing on these important issues to try to give stability and a framework within which business could invest. All that people in rural areas can expect is a visit from a van for a couple of hours every week.
	The Government's position is that there are no guarantees that closures will be capped at 2,500. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) offered the Secretary of State the opportunity to make a clear statement that the Government intend to maintain the size of the network. No guarantee was made.
	We have heard no guarantees that the Post Office card account will continue to be provided in post offices. There was indrawn breath in the House when I suggested that sending out the message to people that it was continuing and they could relax and plan on that basis, even though it might not go through the post office network at all, was a deceit, especially for sub-postmasters, 10 per cent. of whose income comes from the POCA. Perhaps I used unparliamentary language, but I have heard nothing from Ministers to reassure me that sub-postmasters will be able to rely on that money coming in.
	We also have no guarantees that post offices will be freer to compete for business. There are no guarantees at all. The situation is far from one of stability and certainty in the post office network. Instead, the post office bikerather like myself in the summer going round my constituency from village to villagemay easily lose its balance and fall in a ditch unless the Government get a proper grasp on the situation and listen to further arguments from Front-Bench Conservative spokesmen, the Government of whom the post office network will have to wait for in anticipation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful that I have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had not intended to speak in the debate, although as I represent one of the largest rural constituencies in the south of England, rural sub-post offices are extremely important, especially as the situation comes on top of a range of closures in rural areas. I am delighted to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) because they used the time that will not be available to me to describe in graphic detail the desperately important nature of a post office in a rural area. I was especially struck by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, when she said that if a rural sub-post office closes, elderly people, especially those without a caras is the case in many rural constituencies, my constituency has no public transportoften have to rely on the charity of neighbours to allow them to collect their benefits and access the services that such sub-post offices provide.
	It was disappointing that the Secretary of State did not have a greater vision of what he wanted from the rural sub-post office network. He had nothing to offer to House. Given that he was making a major speech on rural sub-post offices, I would have thought that he would be able to provide greater certainty. I do not envy the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), for having to wind up the debate. I hope that he will be able to provide greater certainty in his speech. There is no doubt that if the access criteria in the consultation paper are applied to my constituency, nearly three quarters of its rural sub-post offices could be closed, because the criteria are based on averages, not absolute figures.
	I thought that there was a huge difference between the speech made by the Secretary of State and that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan). One speech was a breath of fresh air that espoused what we wanted to hear: a situation in which sub-post offices are allowed to thrive.
	If I were an already struggling sub-postmaster or postmistress who had listened to the debate, I would be profoundly depressed. Hon. Members have mentioned that 39 per cent. of sub-postmasters and postmistresses think that their business has no future. That is very bad for morale. I would like to think that we were managing a thriving business that was going forward. The Secretary of State finished his speech by addressing the question of closing post offices, but I want post offices to be opening. Indeed, one or two post offices have opened in my constituency. There has been new, innovative thinking. Post offices have opened in clubs, pubs and on farmsin whatever other facilities are available in rural areas. Indeed, the same thing is happening in suburban areas. The closure of a post office in the suburbs causes as much hardship as a closure in a rural area. The Government need to come forward with a lot more innovative thinking. I disagree with the Secretary of State because I think that Post Office Ltd should treat its network more like a franchise, with a basic range of services that has to be provided and an additional range of servicesa pick and mix rangethat individual sub-postmasters could choose to provide, with their expertise and knowledge of their local area, so that they could make a profit and encourage customers to come to the sub-post office.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said, the Government could facilitate the availability of a range of extra services. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Richmond Park, I said that one of my constituents had written to me to say that although he would like to buy his television licence in a post office, he had to go across the road to buy it from a pub, even though he had never been in the pub in his life and did not wish to go there. He wanted to buy the licence from the post office and the post office wanted to sell it, but it was not allowed to do so. The Government could have done something about that daft state of affairs, or at least made more of a fuss about it.
	First of all, the sub-post office could become the hub for all Government services. It could provide information about them, and that would bring people through the door. It is all very well to say that people are choosing not to use sub-post offices, but that is bound to happen if the range of services available is getting smaller and smaller.
	Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said, the Government should encourage local councils to allow people to use sub-post offices for their services. There is no reason why people should not be able to perform council tax and housing benefit transactions at sub-post offices, or why a greater range of financial services could not be made available. My hon. Friend was right to say that the Post Office should look at its contract carefully, with a view to allowing an individual office to provide whatever services it chose. For example, there would be nothing wrong with an office contracting with a local bank some distance away to provide some of that bank's services.
	Thirdly, we live in a changing electronic world, and there is no reason why sub-post offices could not provide various telecoms and IT services. Elderly people may not be able to affordor may not wantto have computers and broadband in their homes, but they could use their local sub-post office to send or receive e-mails, for example. In addition, for foreign telephone calls, it may well be cheaper to use a Post Office telephone that operates over the internet than it would be to use an ordinary domestic telephone. The Government should encourage sub-post offices to offer a range of such services.
	I want to give the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) plenty of time to wind up the debate, so I shall end by saying that we need to provide some certainty for the sub-post office network. The Government should announce, as soon as possible, that they have reached a definite decision on the Post Office card account. That would provide a great deal of certain income to struggling businesses. The longer the uncertainty goes on, the more post offices will close.
	I hopeindeed, I am surethat that is not the Government's intention, but we need as many thriving post offices as possible. In particular, we must make sure that the average age of those who operate them ceases to rise as it has done recently. People feel that they are unable to retire, so we need to encourage young people coming out of school or university to consider setting up as sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses and establishing thriving businesses in rural areas. If such businesses were to combine with others in the provision of services, there is no reason why the network should not thrive, to everyone's benefit.

Charles Hendry: This brief debate has been interesting and well informed, and it has dealt with one of the most important issues affecting hon. Members today. It began with a clear analysis of the decline of the post office network from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan). He set out the challenges that it faces, and described how the Government were wrong to try to manage the network's decline instead of developing the new business opportunities that might sustain it.
	My hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State some very clear questions, but the right hon. Gentleman did not answer them. My hon. Friend asked for an assurance that more than 2,500 sub-post offices would not close, but there was no reply. He asked how large a town would have to be to merit its own post office, but we remain none the wiser. He asked whether POCA 2 would offer a greater range of services. That question was endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee, but it was not answered.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton also asked for the timetable for tenders for the Post Office card account replacement programme, but we did not get that information. Most importantly of all, he even asked for the date when a decision would be made about the future structure of the Royal Mail, but not a single word was given in reply.
	For those of us who have seen the Secretary of State working in the House over some years, it was perhaps one of his most remarkable performances, because he looked tired and disinterested. Perhaps his mind had moved on to his new job, where he hopes to be in a new environment as Chancellor of the Exchequer and to see his old Department abolished. That is not too surprising because, apart from the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), not a single speaker on the Labour Benches offered any support to the Government's position. We are talking about one of the most sure-footed Cabinet Ministers, but the Secretary of State looked extraordinarily uncomfortable in defence of his policy today.
	The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to encourage new business in the Post Office, but he simply will not take the steps necessary to make it happen. He says that there are perhaps only two options: to maintain the network as it is without a single closure and at a high level of subsidy; or, alternatively, to reduce the network and reduce the subsidy as the Government have proposed. What he has completely ignored is the third way, which I would have thought would be obvious to him. One would have thought that he would want to explore the amazing range of new business opportunities for post offices in order to make more of them economically viable so that more can stay in business with less subsidy to keep them that way.
	I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place to hear what I am saying, as we had a remarkably interesting insight into Darling economics [Interruption.] Here he comes, so I will wait for him to resume his place. I am more than willing to go over the earlier part of my speech again, so that he can hear what he missed. We had an astonishing insight into Darling economics: if one post office closes because the sub-postmaster wishes to take a redundancy package, the Post Office may instruct another post office nearby to close and transfer to the new location.
	What the right hon. Gentleman is saying essentially is that the Government would tell a private business, which may have been operating for years in a particular location, serving its community and understanding its customers, that it must close and move to a new location in a community that it does not know, losing all the consumer good will built up over time. What if the postmaster declines to do so? What if he says that he wants to stay where he is and carry on serving the community? It is quite clear from what the Secretary of State said that the postmaster may be told that he may not do so, as his branch may be closed and a new person found to set up the other branch.
	At the heart of the debate is the extraordinary amount of affection that all our constituents have for the post office network. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) mentioned it in her speech and almost every intervention and speech by a Back Bencher referred to people's enormous affection for it. Yet we all know that it goes beyond that: it is not just about affection, but how we can bring new business into the post office network. The hon. Member for Richmond Park spoke about post offices becoming a hub for packages that couriers cannot deliver, but she went on to ruin her argument with an economically illiterate funding arrangement, whereby the Post Office would be separated from the Royal Mail, which would be part-privatised and the funds used to subsidise the separated-off post office network.
	We have heard significant discussion about the Post Office card account. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, introducing the debate, spoke about the near compulsion on people to have their pensions paid into bank accounts. The hon. Member for Richmond Park talked about the letter sent to people when they retire, urging them not to go to the Post Office, but to use the banks instead. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright), who has campaigned strongly on these issues, rightly said that the Government must bear some responsibilityindeed, the lion's share of itfor the problem.
	The Secretary of State says that the use of bank accounts rather than the Post Office has been the result of a long-term change, but when we were in government, we never put the same sort of pressure on people to use the banks. People did not get the same letters then, and they were not rung upas elderly, frail and vulnerable people often are todayand told not to use the Post Office, but their banks. Under the present Government, we have seen an unparalleled level of pressure applied on people to put their pensions into a bank account rather than into the Post Office.
	I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes is not in her place to hear the wind-up speeches or any responses to her remarkable 22-minute speech. She started off by saying that we should close post offices, albeit none in Cleethorpes, and then developed an argument on why post office closures are right. I do not agree with her, but she is a brave person, with a majority of 2,000, to take that position. I hope that her comments will be widely publicised in her local newspapersin fact, in a spirit of good will, I am prepared to help her by sending a copy of her speech to her local press and pointing out what she is saying on behalf of her constituents about why their local post offices should be closed.
	The hon. Lady highlighted other issues, such as the fact that British Telecom bills do not tell customers how they can pay their bills at a post officebut has she done a single thing about it? Has she ever written to British Telecom to point out the omission and to ask it to change its practices? Hers was an extraordinarily weak speechone that was apparently designed to shore up the Government's position, but failed to do so.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) took us on a cycling tour of his constituency and explained how the post office is the hub of every community. Were I to go on a cycling tour of my constituency, the doctor's surgery would be the important hub that I sought in every community. He spoke about the social roles that post offices play and highlighted the way in which many sub-postmasters are being ground down and demoralised by the lack of long-term vision for a post office network.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) summarised effectively the sense of disappointment that all of us felt at the Secretary of State's lacklustre speech and the great contrast between that and the vision set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, who is indeed a one-man think tank on the post office, with a raft of ideas for its future.
	Some 5,000 post offices have been closed since the Labour Government came to power. That means that, in 10 years, taking into account the announcements made in December, 40 per cent. of the post office network will have closed under Labour. That is a national issue. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said, closures affect urban areas every bit as much as rural areas. In Wales, 250 post offices have closed; in my constituency, a third have closed in the past five years.
	We know that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses for the work they do in serving their communities. They deserve better than they are getting from the Government. The Government's decision on the future of the network has been based on how many post offices they think they can get away with closing, rather than on a real business case or an understanding of what consumers want and need. The Secretary of State's vision is to have fewer post offices providing fewer services to fewer people.
	A month after the statement, far too many questions are still unanswered. A raft of parliamentary questions were tabled following last month's statement, but the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Competition Policy, who is one of the most delightful men in government, has been unable or unwilling to say what proportion of closures would be urban or rural. He cannot give a precise figure for the social network subsidy, which implies that it could well be less than the present 150 million a year. He cannot say how much will be invested in improving Crown post offices or how many Crown post offices will close in the next three years.
	The Minister has made no assessment of the likely environmental impact of closures, despite the Government's professed commitment to avoid unnecessary car journeys in order to protect the environment. Whatever happened to joined-up thinking? He cannot give us details of the level of support for mobile post offices. We still do not know whether press reports that the Post Office wanted to close 7,000 of the 14,000 sub-post offices were true. He cannot tell us what a local community would have to do to avert a closureindeed, he does not even tell us whether local communities will have a say.
	We are seeing a massive missed opportunity. Worst of all, the Government's policy does not recognise that the problems caused by the closure of the post office often result in the last shop in a community closing as well. The debate is not only about our post offices; it is about the whole of the communities in which so many of our constituents live. The Government should be announcing ways to develop the Post Office, allowing it work with carriers other than Royal Mail. They should end the restrictive practices and enable the problems of unfair competition to be tackled. They should be working with local councils to encourage them to offer more council services through post offices. Conservative councils are already doing that by encouraging people to pay their rent and access other council services at post office counters. We should be doing more to give post offices the flexibility to offer a wider range of businesses services than is currently permitted, and we should be considering imaginative approaches such as those employed in Wales, where the Welsh Conservatives in the Assembly have announced plans to support local post offices through help with business rates and expansion of the post office development fund.
	The debate has highlighted once again the paucity of the Government's thinking on the issue. We need a real long-term vision for the future of the post office, not the Prime Minister blaming the consumer alone; the Government have been responsible for many of the problems but they have failed to come up with a vision. We need that vision. We need a long-term structure, but we do not have one and as a result we are destined for more years of uncertainty, decline and dissatisfaction.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I take as my starting point a quote from the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry). On BBC News 24, when it was put to him that
	people are arguing that demand for the Post Office's services has declined and therefore we need fewer than we had,
	the hon. Gentleman said:
	There are clearly some which are marginal. There are about 1,000 of them which have less than 50 customers a week and it's going to be quite difficult to give them a viable future.
	That says it all.
	For our part, we know there is a problem; we know that we have to address it and try to come up with solutions. I shall outline how we intend to deliver them and return later in my speech to the solutions proposed by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Wealden that we have had a useful debate about the future of the post office network, a subject of great relevance to the House. We keep coming back to it, and I am sure we shall continue to do so during the consultation period and right through to the announcement from Post Office Ltd in the summer. As always in these short debates, a number of questions have been raised and I shall try to deal with them in due course.
	In the proposals now out for consultation, the Government clearly demonstrate their continuing commitment to the post office network. Our proposed strategy between now and 2011 is intended to maintain a national network of post offices, and to enable Post Office Ltd to undertake modernisation and some reshaping to put the network on a stable footing for the future. Since 1999, the Government have committed about 2 billion to support the network. Under our new proposals, we envisage that up to 1.7 billion will be provided between now and 2011 to support the Post Officeto support the social network and to pay for the wider necessary reconfiguration and modernisation that are key elements in achieving a firm basis on which to move forward.
	At the heart of our strategy is clear recognition of the important social and economic role that post offices play, particularly in rural and deprived urban areas, and of the need for ongoing public funding to support them. We also propose to underpin that commitment to a national network by introducing new access criteria for post office services, which will include specific provisions to protect vulnerable customers.
	Overall, nationally, 99 per cent. of the population will be within 3 miles of a post office and 90 per cent. will be within 1 milehardly a framework for destruction of the network, as has been alleged by some Members. Within that framework, there will be changes. Up to 2,500 post office branches will close, with Government-funded compensation to sub-postmasters who leave.

Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Fitzpatrick: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me I shall not give way now. If I have time towards the end of my speech, I shall certainly take interventions, but I want to cover points raised in the debate, when, with respect, he was not in the Chamber.
	It would be wrong to take things out of perspective and to dismiss the fact that the remaining network of about 12,000 post office branches will still be more than the entire UK banking network. Furthermore, Government support will enable the Post Office to open at least 500 new outreach locations, to provide access to services for smaller and more remote communities, using mobile post offices and post offices in other locations such as shops, village halls, community centres, or mobile vans. There will also be changes to the network of Crown post offices to restore that segment of the network to profitability, but Post Office Ltd will consult locally on those changes, as with all other changes in service provision, before taking final decisions on its proposals.
	During the debate, a number of Members suggested that the network's problems lie squarely at the door of the Government, as a result of the move to pay all benefits into accounts, including the Post Office card account. It might be convenient to blame the network's problems on the Government, but the reality is far more complex, as I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members know. The transition to paying benefits into bank accounts began in the early 1980s. The Government introduced the POCA in 2003 to enable people to claim their pensions and other benefits in cash at the post office, and they remain committed to allowing people to get their pensions or benefits in that way, if they choose to do so. A range of accounts are available at the post office to make that possible.
	The POCA contract ends in March 2010, and the Government have decided that they will continue with a new account after 2010. It will be available nationally, and the basis for eligibility will be the same as it is now. EU procurement rules leave us with no option but to tender competitively for that product, and we must ensure that the best value for money for the taxpayer is achieved, but the Post Office is well placed to put in a strong bid, given the size of the network and the access criteria that we are introducing.
	In addition, cash will be available at post offices through some 4,000 free-to-use ATMs, which are being introduced across the network, as are a range of interest accounts. Those accounts will be attractive to both new, additional customers and those POCA users who choose to build up balances in their access accounts. Our proposals will ensure that people can get their money at post offices, and that there is a national network across the country. Although many people will say that they like their post office and value it highly, we all know that the reality is that many now prefer to pay their bills by direct debit, to use one of the Post Office's competitors, to do their banking via the internet, to use cashpoint machines, to renew their motor vehicle licence online, and to communicate by e-mail or text message. The result is that in some places too many branches are competing for the same customers. Some 4 million fewer customers use post offices weekly than two years ago.
	Of the 11 million pensioners in this country, 8.5 million have their pensions paid into a bank account, and most people making new state pension claims choose to have it paid that way. Last year, the post office network lost 2 million a week. This year, it is 4 million a week, and that figure will continue to grow. It is therefore not surprising that both the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recognised that the present situation is, to use their word, unsustainable. That is why, under the Government's proposals, we look to Post Office Ltd to take a more active role in ensuring that the right post offices are in the right place, and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters supports that. Change is clearly needed. Of the 14,300 current businesses, about 4,000 are commercially viable. Many never can be, and we should not realistically expect them to be.
	Turning to points made in the debate, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) made much of the accelerated rate of closures in recent years, but that is very much reflected by the accelerated pace of technological change. Yesterday and today, the media were full of stories about new advances in mobile technology, and that will have an impact on post office services in future. He also made a comparison with public houses, saying that free competition and free houses had saved pubs. It may come as a surprise to him that pub numbers are down by 12 per cent. since 20 years ago, and even free houses have closed in their thousands.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) sought assurances that the restructuring would cover the urban network, as well as the rural network, and that the procedure would not be as haphazard as that experienced in some areas under the urban regeneration programme. I repeat that we are much better placed to offer her that reassurance now, as there is new Post Office management and an improved Postwatch, and as we have the experience of what happened last time. She raised the issue of people being forced to use direct payment of benefits, but, as I said, direct payment of benefits was introduced in the '80s. More than 4 million people opened a Post Office card accounta figure that undermines the claim that the account is overly difficult to open. She asked whether post offices could become a hub for postal delivery services. At present, Post Office Ltd's mail contract is exclusively with Royal Mail. Royal Mail uses the network to satisfy its universal service obligation to maintain coverage of access points. Widening the service to include other providers would create capacity problems and, the hon. Lady will accept, have major strategic implications for the company. In any event, the matter is being considered by the regulator.
	The hon. Lady asked whether post offices could become storage sites for undelivered items. Royal Mail already offers such a service via the post office network, as its local collect service enables customers who order goods from selected mail order catalogues and internet suppliers that use Royal Mail and the Parcelforce worldwide service to choose to have goods delivered directly to their local post office branch if they do not expect to be at home to receive the delivery. The matter has therefore been dealt with.
	The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) intervened on the hon. Lady to argue that there was not a level playing field for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and post offices, because people had to produce their insurance certificate at the post office, but they did not have to do so for the DVLA. I have to inform him that the renewal form has a DVLA reference number, which is typed into the online link to the DVLA website, which automatically checks that the vehicle is insured and has a valid MOT. No one receives a tax disc without being in possession of the relevant additional documents.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) was subject to an uncharacteristically unchivalrous attack by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart).  [ Interruption. ] There is some dissent among Labour Members, and I apologise for their remarks. My hon. Friend made some excellent points on technical matters. I do not have time to deal with them now, but I shall write to her.
	The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) made a thoughtful speech in which he confirmed that the Government were open-minded about service delivery options and new business opportunities for post offices. I am grateful for his remarks, and we look forward to his contribution to the consultation.
	The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness continued in his aggressive, interventionist mode, and attacked the Government's record on rural affairs. I have to tell him that rural affairs are a key priority for the Government. The access criteria outlined in the consultation document aim to protect services in remote areas and go substantially further than the current universal service obligations. The introduction of new, innovative outreach programmes will help to mitigate the impact of any closures in rural areas. More generally, unemployment under the Government has fallen by 40 per cent. in rural areas, and 50 per cent. rate relief has been extended to village shops. The rural bus subsidy grant, which was worth 53 million in 2005-06 was introduced to support more than 29 million passenger journeys a year.

Robert Smith: rose

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman might have a chance to speak in a moment.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) wanted to see post offices opening. We would certainly like that, too, but we must make sure that the network is sustainable and is in sound health so that it can move forward. When I was promoted to the Department of Trade and Industry, I asked my officials to insert in my diary an engagement to open a new sub-post office, but they said that that was not usual practice for postal services Ministers. In response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park, post offices are opening across the country and, as the Secretary of State outlined, we want to make sure that a network is spread as evenly as possible across the country.
	The hon. Member for Wealden asked many questions, some of which we cannot answer, because they will be included in the consultation that we will publish in due course.
	The Opposition believe that the free market will solve everything, but it will not save thousands of post offices. The short-term solution from the hon. Member for Richmond Park is to privatise Royal Mail and use the proceeds. However, when the money runs out, what would she do? I emphasise that the Government

Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question, That the Question be now put,  put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	 The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 310.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):
	 The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 228.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House acknowledges the important role that post offices play in local communities, particularly in rural and deprived urban areas; recognises that the business environment in which Royal Mail and the post office network are operating is undergoing radical change, with more and more people choosing new electronic ways to communicate, pay bills and access Government services; applauds the Government's record of working closely with Royal Mail, Post Office Ltd. and sub-postmasters to help them meet these challenges with an unprecedented investment of more than 2 billion made by the Government in supporting the network since 1999; endorses the Government's firm commitment to ensuring the continuation of the network, while acknowledging the widely held view that its present size is unsustainable; supports the Government's approach of allowing Royal Mail the freedom to respond to future commercial challenges and opportunities, and in particular enabling Post Office Limited to determine the future shape of the network within clear Government rules governing criteria for local access, a requirement to develop new outreach services, full public consultation on proposals for each affected area and a continuing commitment to social network payments by the Government to reflect sub-post offices' social role; and welcomes the Government's renewed commitment to allowing the public to get their pensions and benefits in cash from post offices if they choose to do so, including a successor to the Post Office card account when the current contract expires in 2010.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Even at this late stage, is there any way in which it would be possible for the Home Secretary to come to the House and make a statement? This morning, I wrote to the Home Secretary explaining that four people have absconded from Sudbury prison who were charged with either murder or manslaughter, and that there was growing concern about that in my constituency. By the time that the letter had been prepared for me to sign, I had to add an addendum saying that another person, also charged with murder, had escaped, bringing the total to five people convicted of murder or manslaughter who are at the moment out of prison and on the loose. Although I appreciate that the Home Secretary is dealing with a number of other problems today, serious concern has been raised for some time about the people who are being sent to open prisons. Is there any way, even at this late stage, in which the Home Secretary can inform the House of any action that he may take?

Stephen O'Brien: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was contacted this afternoon by my constituent, Michael Walker, whose son was killed by one of the fugitives who have absconded from this open prison. In 2002, the judge was so appalled that he sentenced Gary Smith to 10 years for manslaughter with no parole. Less than five years later, he has absconded from an open prison. That has left my constituent and his family in perilous fear about where this man might now be, as well as dredging up appalling memories of what they had to suffer at the hands of a murderer who is now free.

Edward Garnier: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The urgency of the matter is underlined not only by the two points of order that you have just heard, but by the fact that the Home Secretary signed off a memorandum within the Home Office in which he said that he was prepared to take the risk that by removing people from the secure estate and placing them in the open estate such problems might occur. In the light of the points that we three Members of Parliament have brought to your attention, can you arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House urgently to deal with those concerns?

Mr. Speaker: I am disturbed to hear of the difficulties that hon. Gentlemen find in their constituencies. They will know, however, that I am bound by the rules of the House, which hon. Members have made for me to apply properly. I have no powers to bring the Home Secretary to the House at this time in the evening. All experienced Members who have raised such a point of order will know that there are ways of seeking to ask questions of the Home Secretary. The urgent question system can also be used in such circumstances, although I am not saying that I would grant such a request. I would like Members to reflect on the courses open to them.

PETITIONS

Network Rail

Andrew Gwynne: The first of my two petitions concerns Network Rail's proposal to close both Reddish South and Denton stations in my constituency. A skeleton parliamentary service has operated on the Stockport to Stalybridge line since 1991, with just one train a week in one direction. The petitioners recognise that the current line is financially unviable even if the frequency of trains is increased. However, in view of major bids for transport systems being made for Greater Manchester, they argue that the stations should remain open for use on a new commuter route into Manchester Victoria, serving the city centre.
	The Petition of the supporters of the Keep South Reddish Railway Station Open campaign,
	Declares that the Network Rail North West Route Utilisation Strategy 2006 proposes the closure of South Reddish and Denton stations on the Stockport to Stalybridge railway line.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport to reject the proposal of Network Rail, in order to keep the stations and the Stockport to Stalybridge rail line open for passenger service,
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Dangerous Dogs

Andrew Gwynne: My second petition, unfortunately, comes at a very fitting time. Late last year I was approached by Courtney's Campaign in connection with a vicious dog biting incident in my constituency. Last year nine-year-old Courtney Walker was bitten across the face in her neighbour's garden by the neighbour's pet bull mastiff. As the attack took place on the dog owner's property, Greater Manchester police have been unable to call for any criminal punishments.
	Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, a court can call for the destruction of a dog if it is considered to have been dangerous in a public place or in a private place where it is not permitted to be, but not in an easily accessible private place on the dog owner's own property.
	The petition reads
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of Courtney's Campaign,
	Declares that Courtney Walker's face was changed beyond recognition by an unprovoked vicious attack by a Bull Mastiff Dog.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons legislate to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 so that it can also be applied to a dog dangerously out of control on private property on which it is permitted to be, if that dog does injure a person when out of control.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

LEVEL CROSSINGS (NORTH ESSEX)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Kevin Brennan.]

Bernard Jenkin: It is a great pleasure and honour to have the opportunity to raise the issue of rail level crossing safety in my constituency. I am grateful to the Minister for attending the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) is present as well, and I should be delighted if he made a contribution. I am grateful to the Minister for giving his permission for that.
	The question of rail level crossings and their safety is a vexed one. According to a note from the Library, in 2005 there were 7,674 level crossings in Great Britain, of which 79 per cent. were unprotected. I am concerned about the protected crossings. Some 1,623 crossings had manual or automatic gates or barriers, most commonly where vehicles crossed the railway, and there were 253 manual gates operated by railway employees. It is the demise of such crossings in my constituency that gave rise to this debate.
	I have been trying to establish the different safety records of different types of level crossing. The accident statistics are thankfully very sparse. For that reason they do not tell us much, except that manual gates operated by railway employees caused precisely zero fatalities and zero injuries in 2005. By comparison with the record of other crossing systems, that is outstanding. Other kinds of crossing produce casualtiesboth injuries and fatalities.
	I turn to a document entitled, Development of a programme of level crossing research to improve railway safety in Great Britain, produced by the Rail Safety and Standards Board on 16 February 2004. It states at the outset:
	Level Crossing Risk is likely to become the largest category of train accident risk on the National Rail network in Great Britain. It is also a significant risk for road users and pedestrians.
	That is not to say that the risk from level crossings is growing; other safety aspects on the railway are improving, so that then becomes the biggest single issue that the railway bodies have to deal with in addressing rail safety.
	There are some useful statistics in the document giving some assessment of the relative risk posed by different kinds of crossing. On page 6 of the document, it is stated:
	Risk levels depend to a great extent on the type of crossing protection in place.
	A chart shows the equivalent fatalities per year for different types of crossing. It shows that manned gates or barriers offer a risk that is equivalent to one fatality per year, whereas automatic half-barriers or automatic open locally monitored barriers offer significantly increased risk.
	I suspect that those statistics are based solely on fatalities, so I have been looking for other sources to demonstrate the relative safety of different types of crossing, because if we are to remove manned crossings we need to have a better idea of their relative safety.
	I turn to a more recent document: the Rail Safety and Standards Board document entitled, Level crossing safety performance report June 2006. In chart 14 on page 22, that document shows that manually controlled gates offer by far the lowest risk of near misses, particularly compared with manually controlled barriers protected by closed circuit television and operated remotely. It is difficult to describe those findings, but as I have drawn the chart to the Minister's attention I hope that he will be able to respond to it.
	The particular challenge that my constituency faces is that three manned sets of gatesthose at Alresford, Thorrington and Great Bentleyare set to be replaced by alternative crossing systems. It is widely understood among the public that they will be replaced by automatic barriersbarriers that are tripped by the train approaching the level crossing. I fully accept that that might not be the case and that Network Rail is, as is its obligation, looking at alternative systems of monitored automatic barriers, or even at barriers operated by remote control under CCTV surveillance.

Douglas Carswell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern in my constituency about the possible introduction of automatic gates especially in Frinton, but also at the crossing just outside Clacton? There are concerns about the safety implications and about accessibility for disabled people and for older folk who depend on motability scooters. What assurances does my hon. Friend think can be given on safety grounds, and also in respect of accessibility, if those changes are to be made?

Bernard Jenkin: I am sure that the Minister has listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said, and I hope that he will be able to respond in due course to the points that he has raised, because I am raising similar points about the crossings that I have mentioned.

Tom Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me at such an early stage, but as he has asked about what would replace the currently staffed gate at Alresford, it might be useful if I put it on record that it will be replaced not by automatic barriers but by a manually operated barrier, although one that will be operated remotely. I think that the hon. Gentleman refers to it as being automatic on his website, but it will not be automatic.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful for that clarification. I had understood that to be the case. I think that there is an easily confused use of terminology here, which is much more precise to the experts in the industry than to lay people such as myself. I apologise to the House for that. The problem is that in each of these three cases there will no longer be a crossing keeper on the site.
	Let me deal with the Thorrington case first. The crossing is not in the centre of a village; it is not at a focal point of the community. It is a very busy road, and with the junction improvements that are planned on that site I can see strong justification for having manually controlled barriers, albeit remotely controlled and monitored by CCTV. Incidentally, the same goes for the crossing at Chitts Hill, which I have not mentioned privately to the Minister. Chitts Hill is to the west of Colchester, and again the crossing is not within a village. It is on a busy rat-run of roads between Colchester and West Bergholt, and I can fully understand that there is a case for Network Rail to replace manned crossings there, provided that there are improvements to the crossing, particularly to the width.
	I turn now to the Alresford crossing. It is right at the heart of the village, at the end of the station platform. It is by the shops, which are on both sides of the railway, and the local chippy and Chinese takeaway are very nearby. This is a focal point, particularly for younger people in the evening. At both ends of the school day children cross the railway on foot at that point. In the evening, particularly in the summer months, young people tend to congregate near the station and the crossing.
	One of the crossing keepers there told me how he has had to intervene, call the police and deal with the inevitable problems that arise when groups of bored young people congregate late at night, perhaps a little the worse for wear because of alcohol. He wonders who will provide for the safety of those children if there is no crossing keeper. I am looking for assurances from the Minister. It seems that there can be no substitute for having someone on site. Even if the site is being monitored by CCTV, that cannot necessarily provide the comprehensive awareness that someone on the site would have. Even if the CCTV shows young people trespassing on the track, what can the monitors do except perhaps stop trains until the police arrive to deal with the trespass? I cannot see how that will be satisfactory.
	Secondly, I turn to the Great Bentley crossing. This, too, is right by the station, on the edge of the village but near a pub and shops and next to the local primary school. Again, at both ends of the school day, children will be coming and going across the railway. Great Bentley has the largest village green in the country, and this is another area where young people tend to congregate. I foresee the same kinds of difficulty.
	Before Network Rail is allowed to proceed with these changes, I simply ask the Minister what assurances he can give me and my constituency that safety will not be compromised. Returning to the statistics that I have talked about, all the evidence suggests that unmanned crossings carry higher risks than manned crossings, and there seems to be a very strong case for maintaining manned crossings in these locations.

Tom Harris: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on securing the debate. I also thank him sincerely for the measured and considered way in which he has approached the issue, which is clearly a serious matter for his constituents and for all hon. Members. I will talk briefly about level crossing safety more generally before turning to the specific case of North Essex.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, there are more than 7,600 level crossings throughout the mainline rail network. There are several different types of crossing, and they range from open crossings with no barriers or gates, which are used when a road is quiet and train speeds are lowI shall return to that important point laterto crossings with full barriers that are monitored by CCTV. Level crossings of whatever type are adequately safe when they are used correctly. However, I must make an important point: absolute safety is an impossible goal, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates.
	It is important that the right type of crossing is used in particular locations to achieve adequate safety with minimum delays to road traffic. Account should be taken of factors such as the number and speed of trains, the volume and type of road traffic, the nature of private use, the number of pedestrians using the crossing and the location of the crossing itself. What might be appropriate for a quiet country road or a crossing on farm land might not be appropriate for a busy urban area.
	The annual reports on railway safety that are produced by the rail safety regulator give details of the numbers of each type of crossing on the national network and details of accidents on all railways, which include heritage lines and the London underground as well as the overland network that is maintained by Network Rail. Copies of the annual railway safety reports are in the House Library. The most recent report, which was for calendar year 2005, showed that there were 27 train accidents at level crossings and that they resulted in 16 fatalities. Those fatalities were made up of nine pedestrians, four drivers of road vehicles, two cyclists and one train driver. More detailed data on level crossing safety are given in the annual rail safety performance reports that are produced by the Rail Safety and Standards Board.
	Some 96 per cent. of accidents at level crossings are considered to be caused by road driver or pedestrian misuse, whether that is intentional or unintentional. Although the statistics show that the safety record for level crossings in this country is among the best in the world, it is always desirable to try to improve safety. As the hon. Gentleman said, level crossings now represent the single greatest source of the risk of train accidentsthat is accidents with the potential for multiple deaths.
	Network Rail, the operator of the mainline network, is putting a significant effort into improving safety at level crossings. It is focusing on closing crossings altogether whenever the opportunity arises, improving the operation and maintenance of level crossings, running a programme of risk assessment to identify where additional action might be needed and implementing measures to promote the safe use of crossings. The hon. Gentleman may well have seen or heard the effective television and radio campaign that Network Rail ran last year to highlight the very real dangers of misusing level crossings. More generally, Network Rail is working hard to improve the efficiency of its operationswithout, of course, in any way compromising safetywith the aim of reducing the substantial costs of the rail network, which inevitably fall on taxpayers and rail users.
	Let me turn to what is happening in North Essex. Network Rail is installing a new signalling system. The system will improve the network's reliability, which, in turn, will benefit passengers by improving train performance, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would welcome. New signalling means more reliable equipment, which means more punctual trains. The new signalling will also provide more operational flexibility. That will mean that when incidents do occurI am talking about incidents such as a failed trainthey can be more easily worked around, thus meaning that there is a better service for passengers. Most re-signalling schemes also deliver faster operating speeds on the line. Modern signals need less maintenance than older ones, which reduces the cost of running the railway.
	As part of the work to renew and modernise signalling, Network Rail, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, proposes to modernise crossings that currently require a railway employee to be stationed at each crossing to close the gates across the road manually to allow trains to pass. Perhaps, for the record, we should start referring to those crossings as staffed, rather than manned. The Network Rail proposal would have significant benefits, reducing the length of time for which a crossing was closed and cutting operational costs without compromising safety. It would also reduce the risk of the crossing keeper getting injured by road traffic.
	The hon. Gentleman said that there were no manned crossing fatalities in 2005, but there is a history of the workers who man those crossings getting injured as a result of drivers being impatient, reckless or irresponsible in their efforts to cross the railway line even as the gate is being closed. The numbers involved are not huge, but the injuries suffered have sometimes been serious.
	Automated crossings mean that barriers are closed for shorter periods, resulting in the smoother flow of train and road traffic, with fewer delays for both. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the comparative safety performance statistics for different types of crossing. Those comparisons, which I have seen, are produced by the Rail Safety and Standards Board, and they show that manually operated crossings have a better safety record than other types. However, a purely statistical analysis does not take account of the different ways in which trains, motor vehicles and pedestrians use the crossings.
	Safety is a major consideration, but it has to be weighed against other factors, such as the wider benefits that accrue to rail passengers from more reliable trains, and to motorists from the shorter time for which crossings are closed. Moreover, the statistics to which the hon. Gentleman referred do not compare like with like, as they do not discriminate between high-speed rail lines, urban lines or village lines. That means that it is very difficult to achieve an absolutely accurate picture of the relative safety of crossing types, although I accept that he is right to raise the matter, since the bald statistics, in the absence of context, do paint a particular picture.
	Manually operated gated crossings may be statistically safer, but it is the considered view of the independent rail safety regulator that other types of crossing are also safe when used correctly. A range of factors needs to be considered when determining the most appropriate type of crossing for a given location. If a crossing is properly monitored with CCTV, that is sufficient to check that it can be used safely by trains.

Bernard Jenkin: Young people are not likely to think about how such crossings should be used properly. Will the Minister say what happens when the camera sees kids messing around on or near a crossing, putting both themselves and train passengers at risk?

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that concern. The crossing in his constituency to which I referred earlier will be replaced by a manual barrier controlled remotely from a signal box. When the video screen shows someone trespassing, that is a very serious matter for Network Rail. Lines of communication are available to ensure that trains heading to that location are alerted to the fact. The policeand, if necessary, British Transport policeare also alerted.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government would not give a green light to any infrastructure change for level crossings if we believed that it would in any way compromise the safety of pedestrians, especially young ones. It is far better for us to rely on the evidence of the experts. The Network Rail proposals must be approved by Her Majesty's rail inspectorate, which is part of the Office of the Rail Regulator. That is where the expertise in these matters lies. Although it is of course entirely appropriate for MPs to raise concerns on behalf of their constituents, I do not think that it is up to Ministers, with their shallow technical knowledge, to make decisions about the safety of level crossings and to determine what is safe and what is not. I would much rather allow Her Majesty's rail inspectorate to make that decision on the Government's behalf. The vast majority of people in the industry would be far more comfortable with that process than with Ministers making that decision.
	It is the view of the independent rail safety regulator that each type of crossing is adequately safe when operated and used correctly, as long as the type of crossing is appropriate for the location. The safety of railway employees working manual gates is, as I said, an area of growing concern. There is a need for closer working and better co-operation on level crossing safety between road traffic and rail authorities.
	The hon. Gentleman may be aware that a provision in the Road Safety Act 2006, which is expected to come into force shortly, will permit road traffic measures as well as purely rail measures to be specified in a level crossing order. That will make it easier to control the speed of road vehicles on the approach to level crossings through measures such as rumble strips to alert vehicles to slow down, increased use of warning signs and more enforcement cameras.
	In the case of the level crossings in North Essex that concern the hon. Gentleman, Network Rail will need to convince the railway inspectorate that the replacement crossings that it wants are as safe as or safer than the existing crossings that they replace. I reiterate my earlier point that if it cannot make that case, the replacement will not go ahead. The railway inspectorate has professional expertise in level crossing safety and I have already said that it is right for decisions on technical areas to be taken by those with the proper technical background.
	Members on both sides of the House have welcomed the improving performance of our railways in terms of punctuality, reliability and safety. Having said that, it may not be entirely true, as I doubt whether every Member of every political party will welcome those particular improvements, but most Government Members certainly do. Network Rail is investing heavily in upgrading infrastructure to deliver improving performance.
	There is no point in putting in modern signalling systems in areas such as North Essex if trains and road traffic are then going to be slowed down by antiquated and prohibitively costly level crossings, where crossing keepers are required to open and close gates manually at some risk to their own safety. It would not be in Network Rail's interests to replace existing crossings with ones that are less safe; apart from the human cost, that would lead to delays and disruption while incidents were dealt with. The decision on what is safe will be taken by the rail safety experts in Her Majesty's railway inspectorate. We should trust their judgment in approving the most suitable type of level crossing for the particular circumstances of each location.
	I pay tribute again to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue on behalf of his constituents and for leading this debate in a very measured and considered fashion. I fear, however, that my comments this evening may not be sufficient to reassure him on all the points that he raised. Nevertheless, it is the case that all types of level crossing are safe when used correctly and that safety records at level crossings in the UK are among the best in Europe. Any changes proposed by Network Rail and consequently approved by HMRI will do nothing to change that.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eight o'clock.